The health promoting school : international advances in theory, evaluation and practice 8776840123

Citation preview

The book arises out of the Education and Health in Partnership conference, which took place in Egmond aan Zee, the Netherlands in September 2002. The key aims of the conference were to focus on effective partnership working for health in schools and to consider the evidence base for health promoting schools programmes. A significant outcome of the conference was the Egmond Agenda, which outlines the principal components for success in establishing health promoting schools.

The volume will be of interest to all education and health professionals interested in the contributions of schools in promoting health, empowerment, action competence and wellbeing of young people.

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

Contributors from across Europe, the United States, South Africa and Australia present findings from national health promoting school projects, with a particular emphasis on the promotion of mental health.

Stephen Clift Bjarne Bruun Jensen (Eds.)

This book brings together recent international scholarship on the links between education and health, and recent research evidence evaluating the processes and outcomes of health promoting schools initiatives.

Stephen Clift and Bjarne Bruun Jensen (Eds.)

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

Stephen Clift and Bjarne Bruun Jensen (Eds.)

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

Danish University of Education Press

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice Editors: Stephen Clift and Bjarne Bruun Jensen Research Programme for Environmental and Health Education at the Danish University of Education Published on behalf of the European Network of Health Promoting Schools by Danish University of Education Press The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s)/contributors and do not necessarily represent the decisions or the stated policy of the participating organizations of the European Network of Health Promoting Schools © 2005 Danish University of Education Press No parts of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Typeset and Cover: Schwander Kommunikation, Copenhagen Printed in Denmark by: Reproset, Copenhagen 1. edition, 1. impression ISBN 87-7684-012-3 Danish University of Education Press 54, Emdrupvej DK – 2400 Copenhagen NV [email protected] www.dpu.dk/forlag

How to buy: National Library of Education P.O. Box 840, DK – 2400 Copenhagen NV www.dpb.dpu.dk [email protected] T: +45 8888 9360 F: +45 8888 9394

3

Contents

7

Foreword Vivian Barnekow Rasmussen

9

Introduction Stephen Clift, Bjarne Bruun Jensen and Peter Paulus

Part I: Concepts and Theory 23

1 Health Promotion in Schools: The Radical Imperative Keith Tones

41

2 Complexity and the Health Promoting School Derek Colquhoun

55

3 From the Health Promoting School to The Good and Healthy School: New Developments in Germany Peter Paulus

75

4 Towards the Development of Indicators for Health Promoting Schools Charles T. Viljoen, Tiaan G.J. Kirsten, Bo Haglund and Per Tillgren

87

5 The Tailored Schoolbeat-Approach: New Concepts for Health Promotion in Schools Mariken T.W. Leurs, Maria W.J. Jansen, Herman P. Schaalma, Ingrid M. Mur-Veeman and Nanne K. De Vries

107

6 Implementing Research-Based Health Promotion Programmes in Schools: Strategies for Capacity Building Cheryl Vince Whitman

4

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

137

7 Health Education and Environmental Education: The Case for Integration Jörgen Svedbom

151

8 Skills for Health: Skills-Based Health Education to Teach Life Skills Carmen Aldinger and Cheryl Vince Whitman

173

9 Participation and Learning about Health Venka Simovska

193

10 Inequality, Health and Action for Health – Do Children and Young People in Denmark have an Opinion? Bjarne Bruun Jensen and Bente Jensen

Part II: Case Studies 217

11 What can we Learn for the Future Development of the Health Promoting School Idea from the Experience of a Project in two Regions in Russia? Katherine Weare

239

12 Professional Competition and Cooperation Frames for Health Promotion in Swedish Schools Rolf Lander

253

13 The Roles of Participation and Dialogue in Health Promoting Schools: Cases from Sweden Lena Nilsson

271

14 Collaboration as a Learning and Research Method in Promotional and Participatory Action Research in the Finnish ENHP Schools Kerttu Tossavainen, Hannele Turunen and Harri Vertio

291

15 The Views of School Health Nurses on Promoting the Health and Well-Being of Young People in Finnish Upper Level of Comprehensive School Raili Välimaa

309

16 Action-Oriented Knowledge, Information and Communication Technology and Action Competence: A Young Minds Case Study Bjarne Bruun Jensen and Venka Simovska

329

17 Mindmatters (Germany and Switzerland): Adaptation, First Results and Further Steps Marco Franze

Contents

347

18 Computers Don’t Matter in the End: An Experience of Empowering Children in Macedonian Schools Kristina Egumenovska

367

19 Upbringing as a way of Supporting Adolescents’ Health Learning – Views of Parents in the Finnish ENHPS Hannele Turunen, Kerttu Tossavainen and Harri Vertio

Part III: Comparative Studies 383

20 The Development and Evaluation of a Mental Health Promotion Programme for Post-Primary Schools in Ireland Mary Byrne, Margaret Barry, Saoirse NicGabhainn and John Newell

409

21 Is the Social Climate More Secure in Health Promoting Schools? A Comparative Research Study Miluse Havlinova and Michal Kolar

423

22 An Evaluation of the Impact of Health Promoting Schools in Latvia 1993-2000 Silva Omarova, Vizma Mikelsone and Ilze Kalnins

447

23 Evaluation of a School Based Health Promotion Program on Sexual Health Education by Female Physicians – A Gender Approach Christiane Thomas, Ulrike Ravens-Sieberer, Christine Klapp, and Gisela Gille

463

24 Health Promoting Schools: Building Social and Organizational Capital to Promote Teachers’ Wellbeing and Job Commitment Kate Lemerle and Donald Stewart

491

Contributors

5

7

Foreword Vivian Barnekow Rasmussen

The European Network of Health Promoting Schools was established in the early nineties by Council of Europe, the European Commission and WHO, Regional Office for Europe as an outcome of a series of workshops and conference focussing on the setting approach as a tool to develop health promotion in schools. Over time countries active in the network have developed comprehensive programmes involving both health and education sectors. As the two sectors were often using different terminology and tools for evaluation, it soon became a challenge to provide evidence and proof of effectiveness, which would be useful to both health and well being perspectives as well as to academic achievement; the health promoting school had to prove its usefulness to all partners involved. The European Conference on linking education with the promotion of health on schools was held in Egmond an Zee in September 2002. One of the key aims of the conference was to focus on education and health in partnership as well as on the evidence base for health promoting schools programmes. The conference offered a series of workshops looking into different issues such as the effectiveness of school based health promotion indicators for success, and evaluation approaches and methods. A large number of papers were presented during the conference, all peer-reviewed in order to ensure high quality. One outcome was the Egmond Agenda, a tool for programming which has a high emphasis on evaluation perspectives, and one of the follow ups from the conference was to start the process of collecting and consolidating the evidence base of health promotion in the school setting.

8

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

As a result of this participants who had presented papers at the conference, as well as national coordinators and through them also national researchers involved in health promoting schools approaches, were invited to contribute to this book. All contributions were peer reviewed and a final selection of relevant input to the book was chosen. We have no intentions of claiming that this book represents the full picture of the evidence base for health promotion in schools; the publication is to be seen as stepping stone in building the evidence base, a contribution to the professional and expert literature linked to health promoting schools approaches. We sincerely hope that the book will not only be helpful to experts working in the field of school health promotion, but that it can also be used to inform policymakers on decisions to take to support HPS developments. It is also our hope that this book will encourage researchers and other resource people working with health promotion and schools to make publicly available the results of their research to strengthen the evidence base for health promoting school approaches.

9

Introduction Stephen Clift, Bjarne Bruun Jensen and Peter Paulus

The Health Promoting School Vision School health promotion has made a considerable progress since its beginnings in the early nineties of the last century. Expanding the traditional approach of health education in schools, which aimed at influencing knowledge, attitudes and behaviour of pupils it reached its final and elaborated conceptualization in the settings approach of the health promoting school. This approach, which links democracy, participation and health, has gained acceptance as one of the most powerful approaches to promoting health, empowerment and action competence in and with schools. In 1992 the European Network of Health Promoting Schools started with pilot schools in four countries: Czech Republic, Poland, Slovac Republic and Poland (Stewart Burgher et al., 1999). Today more than 40 countries are members of this network. Several initiatives planned and negotiated with partners by the Technical Secretariat of WHO Europe in Copenhagen have stimulated the development of the network and strengthened its capacities. One event was an international workshop on ‘Health Education and Democracy’ held in Copenhagen in 1994 (Jensen, 1995), involving 65 participants from 30 countries’ health promoting school networks. A later major event was the first Conference of the ENHPS in Thessaloniki-Halkidiki (Greece) (WHO, 1997). The theme of the conference ‘The Health Promoting School – an Investment in Education, Health and Democracy’ pointed in a direction we are still going. School health promotion has to be integrated in the educational agenda of the schools and has to been seen as contributing, through strategies such as participation, action competence and empowerment, to democratic development

10

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

in general and in schools in particular, to minimize the unequal distribution of health risks and learning opportunities in our societies. The resolution of that conference put up ten basic principles and targets that are needed in Europe to make it possible that every child has the opportunity to attend a Health Promoting School. More than ten years of piloting, further developing and evaluating this approach in the school setting in different countries produced a wealth of results and experiences. Denman et al. (2002) summarized the policy, research and practice of the health promoting school movement. It complements the publication of the International Union for Health Promotion and Education (IUHPE, 1999), which gives a comprehensive overview about the evidence of effectiveness of health promotion and school health promotion in particular. Publications of the research results on ‘Health Behaviour of School-aged Children’ (HBSC) a international project run by WHO-Europe in more than 30 countries worldwide completed the picture of school health especially from the perspective of pupils (King et al., 1996; Currie et al., 2000; Currie et al., 2004). As a result we know today a lot more about the structures and processes in and outside the school that support the development of a health promoting school. We also know more about the basic principles that underlie current perspectives on school health promotion: participation, empowerment and networking. We also know more about what can be expected as outputs and in the longer term as outcomes from school health promotion initiatives. The European Network of Health Promoting Schools has contributed significantly to the development of evaluation and research focused on health promoting schools. In three workshops organized in cooperation of the Technical Secretariat of ENHPS and the Swiss Federal Office for Public Health, which took place in Switzerland between 1998 and 2004 (ENHPS, 1998, 2001, 2004) National Coordinators and researchers from more than 40 countries in the network had the opportunity to focus on processes of evaluation to clarify what works and why and to assess the effects of the health promoting school for different groups in the school

Origins of This Book This book arises out of the conference ‘Education and Health in Partnership’ which took place in Egmond aan Zee, The Netherlands in September 2002

Introduction

(Young, 2002). For the conference, which was attended by more than four hundred and fifty delegates from all over Europe and the rest of the world, a scientific committee was formed. The task of the committee was to peer-review all the abstracts sent in for paper and poster presentations. At this time it was obvious that the quality of papers was of such a high standard that it would be worthwhile to pursue the possibility of publishing the best contributions in a book. Following the conference, the Secretariat of the European Network of Health Promoting Schools invited Stephen Clift, Canterbury Christ Church University, and Bjarne Bruun Jensen, Danish University of Education, to work together as editors of this publication. The main idea of the publication was to bring together recent and significant scientific work on the Health Promoting School, both in developing conceptual and theoretical frameworks for understanding their operation and in producing evidence to assess and evaluate the processes and outcomes. An internationally renowned Editorial Board was established to assist the editors (all of whom where members of the organising committees for the Egmond Conference), and all submissions were subject to rigorous review. The members who included the editors of the journals ‘Health Education’ and ‘Health Education Research: Theory and Practice’ were: • Derek Colquhoun (UK) • Carl Parsons (UK) • Peter Paulus (Germany) • Jörgen Svedbom (Sweden) • Keith Tones (UK) • Katherine Weare (UK) • Barbara Woynarowska (Poland) Through the journal ‘Network News’, direct e-mails and the business meetings the National Coordinators within the European Network of Health Promoting Schools people were invited to encourage relevant resource people and researchers to send in articles for the publication. Furthermore, conference attendees outside the European Network of Health Promoting Schools (e.g. from other countries or from other networks) were contacted directly and invited to send in contributions. Submissions for the book were reviewed independently by at least two members of the Editorial Board. The reviews were carried out on the basis of

11

12

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

agreed criteria reflecting the guidelines that were circulated to potential authors. Many of the papers accepted for publication have been through a dynamic process involving the authors, the editorial board and the editors. We have found this process stimulating and fruitful and we do hope the authors feel likewise. In the guidelines the authors were invited to take account of the Egmond Agenda, which was the overall outcome of the ‘Education and Health in Partnership’ conference (Young, 2002). In addition to this, and on the basis of the conference declaration from the first European Conference of the European Health Promoting Schools in 1997 (WHO, 1997) the authors were encouraged to take notice of the following statement: A Health Promoting School embodies practical and conceptual links between education, health and participatory values. In relies on input, experiences and decisions at local levels, yet learns from and contributes to wider goals, objectives and developments. There will always be new challenges to be faced. An HPS programme can never be complete, or stop learning from others. The book, with its 42 contributors and 24 chapters, reflects these aspects and illustrates the cultural diversity and pluralism existing within the Health Promoting School ‘movement’ according to methods, health concepts and understanding and interpretation of ‘evidence’. We hope this variety will be considered and received as a great inspiration for further developments at all levels.

Issues Addressed Contributions to this volume fall readily into three groupings – those which discuss some aspects of the theory or practice of health promoting schools, or raise important questions to do with the focus and process of health promotion in school settings – those which present qualitative case studies of health promotion initiatives in schools – and those which report the results of comparisons between health promoting and non-health promoting schools in terms of outcome measures. Section I, Concepts and Theory, begins with Keith Tones outlining the major ideological and socio-cultural influences on the school curriculum understood in its widest sense, and outlining the key values inherent in health promotion.

Introduction

Tones provides a valuable context for all contributions which follow in presenting the settings approach to health promotion and the key requirements of a Health Promoting School. The key issues he identifies – the creation of ‘a school climate in which good relationships, respect and consideration for others flourish’, and the promotion of opportunities which ‘actively develop pupils’ self-esteem and self confidence, enabling them to exercise responsibility for their own and others’ health’ – are to be found reflected in the contributions throughout this volume. In the following chapter, Derek Colquhoun continues the critical theme. He makes an appeal for recognising the complexity of school settings and the need to ensure that this complexity is taken into account in any attempts to evaluate health promoting school initiatives. Schools he believes should be active partners in a research process designed to help them reflect critically on their aims and achievements – research that is ‘with and by’ schools – rather than being the object of detached scrutiny from health researchers pursuing their own agendas. The tensions between education and health implicit in Colquhoun’s account are further addressed by Peter Paulus. He outlines recent developments in Germany on the need to address the significance of health for educational success and integrate this issue with concepts of the health promoting school. His suggestion that the ‘healthy school’ needs to be replaced by the idea of the ‘the good and healthy school’ will surely have wider resonance in other national contexts, where concerns with educational standards per se are high on political agendas. So too will the suggestions by Charles Viljoen and his colleagues that the development of good and healthy schools and their evaluation is facilitated by having a clear set of indicators. Useful work has already been undertaken with the European Network of Health Promoting Schools on developing a framework of indicators, but the continued relevance of this issue is clearly demonstrated by the fact that indicators are the focus of a forthcoming evaluation workshop to be organized by European Secretariat November 2005. Viljoen et al. are surely right in emphasising that indicators need to be relevant to developments and structures within each national context. The following contribution by Mariken Leurs and colleagues provides an account of the development of a particular approach to health promotion in The Netherlands, which clearly has particular implications for the development of criteria for evaluating process and outcomes. SchoolBeat is a ‘bottom-up’ approach for school health promotion which has ‘a strong focus on the

13

14

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

establishment and monitoring of sustainable intersectoral collaborative support for comprehensive school health promotion.’ In addition, a new model for evaluating the collaborative aspects of this approach has been devised – and provides an excellent example of an approach to evaluation that is ‘with and by’ schools, as advocated by Colquhoun. The need for capacity building in schools if they are to make best use of existing research evidence in developing health promotion programmes is addressed in the next contribution by Cheryl Vince Whitman. Writing from a foundation of considerable experience in the United States context, the chapter argues that if education policy makers and teachers are to assess research evidence on the effectiveness of interventions, they need to have ‘a basic understanding of the language and concepts of social science research and evaluation, as well as basic knowledge from the fields of public health, diffusion of innovation and organizational development’. Whitman goes on to offer guidelines on what needs to be done ‘to advance the research-to-practice process in schools’ Chapters in Section I then move to a more detailed consideration of knowledge construction and pedagogy within schools. Jörgen Svedbom writing from a Swedish context raises interesting issues at the level of formal curriculum structure and the place of teaching about health. He highlights the struggles for space and time in the curriculum that can arise between areas such as health and environmental studies, and what may be regarded as mainstream concerns of schools as educational institutions – and makes an appeal for recognising the value that can come from curricular integration rather than division. If teaching about health and about the environment are potentially in competition for space in school timetables, it would perhaps be sensible to recognise their commonalities and pursue an integrated approach. In the first chapter Tones highlighted the need for ways of working with young people in schools, which help to develop their self-confidence and skills in addressing health issues, and the following two chapters address such pedagogical issues in more detail. Aldinger and Whitman review a large body of theory and research that provides a rationale for the benefits and uses of skillsbased health education. Such education, they argue, should ‘enable young people to apply knowledge and develop attitudes and life skills to make positive decisions and take actions to promote and protect one’s health and the health of others.’ Research evidence on the critical factors that lead to positive outcomes from health education is usefully reviewed, and the authors provide valuable

Introduction

guidance on the range of issues that need to be addressed to ensure that health promotion can be effective in schools settings. Venka Simovska provides a more fine-grained analysis of the role of young people’s participation in actively learning about health – developing not simply knowledge of health issues, but also the sense of being able to take action in promoting their own health. The importance of understanding young people’s perspectives on health is further reinforced by Bjarne Bruun Jensen and Bente Jensen’s account of their innovative studies of young people’s beliefs about health inequalities. Their rhetorical question ‘Do young people have an opinion?’ is answered with a clear ‘yes!’ and their work serves to remind us – if we need reminding – that a sound understanding of young people’s views are an essential foundation for the development and delivery of any effective educational endeavour – and not least in the area of health. Section II, Case Studies, presents insights into health promoting initiatives from a wide range of countries. Katherine Weare describes a project to introduce the idea of the health promoting school into two large districts in Russia, through a sponsored programme of teacher training and in-school consultation and support. The chapter provides a fascinating insight into the cultural and institutional assumptions embodied in the philosophy of the European approach to health promoting schools and the extent to which they are accepted or otherwise in the Russian context. Rolf Lander and Lena Nilsson address related issues in their discussions of school based health promotion initiatives in Sweden and the extent to which organizational and professional constraints serve to compromise otherwise good intentions. As Lander notes: ‘Health promotion in schools is an endeavour framed by the institutional and professional forces at work within the social organization of schools, and it will not be successful in the long run if it does not build on an understanding of such forces.’ His case studies provide illuminating illustrations of the ‘political’ dimensions of innovation in educational settings. Nilsson focuses on the possibilities for real dialogue in schools, which offers opportunities for all participants to share their perspectives. In an ideal dialogue, she argues ‘… different voices must be invited to participate and different ways of communicating must be permitted. This sort of dialogue is marked by a climate of open participation and guided by a spirit of discovery and its tone is exploratory and interrogative.’ The case studies show that while the schools investigated tried to establish such dialogical patterns, they had ‘not

15

16

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

yet fully grasped the strategies needed to make all pupils participate and feel secure in dialogue and to be aware of the learning opportunities that such dialogue provides’. Kerttu Tossavainen and her colleagues provide a further illustration of issues raised in Section I by Derek Colquhoun and explored by Kathy Weare – namely the role of teachers in the approach adopted in evaluating health promoting school initiatives. In Finland, a clear commitment was adopted to a collaborative model both in developing and evaluating the impact of innovation in schools – but this process, as they show, has brought substantial challenges. As they note: ‘…the results of our study showed that schools seemed to lack a clearly defined, shared collective health promotion policy that would have been implemented and everyone’s responsibility’ and a lack of such consensus inevitably interferes with a collaborative approach to evaluation. The following two case studies – by Bjarne Bruun Jensen and Venka Simovska on Young Minds and Marco Franze on MindMatters have two common features – they draw on experiences of projects involving international collaboration, and also provide insights from both teachers and pupils of the projects they were engaged in. The idea of a European Network of Health Promoting Schools is built on a commitment to the importance of sharing ideas, experiences and good practice – of individuals in different countries learning from one another – and so it is encouraging that we were able to include these case studies which represent cross-national sharing of information and on-going collaboration at the level of work in schools. These studies also illustrate an important principle that the views of different groups of participants and stakeholders should be sought in the evaluation of an initiative. It is a particularly strong feature of both studies that they include accounts from both teachers and pupils of the projects described. The case study presented by Kristina Egumenovska continues the theme of cross-national collaboration in her account of the application of the action competence model developed in Denmark, within a Macedonian context. Her account is particularly valuable for highlighting how young people’s experience of working together towards an agreed goal brings its own benefits, irrespective of whether the collaborative action is successful at the end of the day. She illustrates in a concrete way the claim sometimes made in health promotion that it is process that is valuable and not just the outcomes. Teachers and pupils are central characters in the educational process in schools, but not the only significant figures, and two papers from Finland

Introduction

remind us of the key role that nurses and parents play in relation to the health of children and young people. Raili Välimaa notes that ‘school health nurses have a ringside seat in observing health issues at school’ and for that reasons their accounts of the problems young people bring to them provide important insights – not least into the changing pressures young people experience. Hannele Turunen and her colleagues report a study of parents’ views of ‘how they support the healthy growth of their children’ and the most striking feature of their results, is that ‘parents lacked knowledge of many common issues related to maintaining adolescents’ health and well-being’ – suggesting that the school has a role to play in helping parents understand some of the key health challenges facing young people. Section III, Comparative Studies, reports studies on the effects of health promotion initiatives in schools in various national contexts, which focus on outcomes assessed in standardised ways. Mary Byrne and colleagues report an evaluation of the impact of the Irish Mind Out programme designed ‘to provide opportunities for young people to promote their own mental health through an exploration of stress and coping, sources of support, emotions, relationships, and supporting others.’ This programme was substantially based on the Australian Mind Matters materials discussed in the earlier chapter by Marco Franze. A sophisticated design was employed to assess whether the programme had effects over and above a more general health education programme, and to control for the possible effects of baseline assessment. Broadly speaking the results were positive showing that young people following the Mind Out programme showed greater compassion and understanding for people experiencing depression, were more aware of services available to young people and were able to suggest positive steps for people needing to seek help. Two further controlled studies in the Czech Republic reported by Miluse Havlinova and Michal Kolar and in Latvia by Silva Omarova and colleagues, focus on issues of school and classroom environment and highlight the problem of aggression and bullying among pupils in schools. Strikingly, while both studies supported expectations that health promoting schools would provide evidence of more positive social environments, more specific expectations that young people would report less bullying were not supported. In both accounts the authors interpret their findings in a favourable light – suggesting that pupils in health promoting schools showed higher awareness to the problems and were more willing to disclose and challenge such behaviours.

17

18

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

The only contribution in this collection to address issues of sexual health follows in the chapter by Christiane Thomas and colleagues, who consider the contribution that visiting health professionals can make to health promotion activities within schools. The primary aim of their study was ‘to evaluate the effectiveness of the gender specific sexual health program by female physicians in changing emotional knowledge associated with sex and sexuality.’ Young people in grades 6 and 9 participated in the study and their sexual knowledge was judged to be quite limited prior to a 90-minute intervention – but significantly improved two weeks later. Finally, the chapter by Kate Lemerle and Donald Stewart provides some counter-balance to the weight of contributions focusing on young people’s health in considering the important issue of teachers’ well being. There is little doubt that teaching is a demanding profession, and if schools take seriously the health promoting school philosophy, the health and well being of teachers – and other members of staff in the school – should be explicitly addressed. Detailed findings of a large-scale survey of teachers are reported, and the key message is clear: teachers in health promoting schools reported ‘significantly lower job-related stress, and significantly better self-rated mental health.’ Taken together, we hope that the contributions to this volume provide the reader with a picture of some of the recent international developments in the theory, evaluation and practice of health promotion in schools. The book does not provide a comprehensive account of all the research and evaluation that has been undertaken, or is ongoing, on health promoting schools and health promotion initiatives in schools. The reader will be aware, for instance, that not all countries in the European Network are represented here. We hope, nonetheless, that this volume will make a valuable contribution to the continuing effort to establish some of the necessary conditions for effective health promotion in school settings, not least for the benefit of future generations of young people.

Introduction

References Currie, C., Hurrelmann, K., Settertobulte, W., Smith, R. and Todd, J. (eds) (2000) Health and Health Behaviour among Young People, WHO Policy Series: Health policy for children and adolescents Issue 1, Copenhagen, WHO Regional Office for Europe. Available from: http://www.hbsc.org/publications.html Accessed 12 May 2005. Currie, C., Roberts, C., Morgan, A., Smith, R., Settertobulte, W., Samdal, O. and Barnekow Rasmussen, V. (Eds.) (2004) Young People’s Health in Context: International Report from the HBSC 2001/02 Survey, WHO Policy Series: Health policy for children and adolescents Issue 4, WHO Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen. Available from: http://www.hbsc.org/publications/reports.html Accessed 12 May 2005. Denman, S., Moon, A., Parsons, P. and Stears, D. F. (2002) The Health Promoting School: Policy, Research and Practice, London, Routledge/Falmer. ENHPS (1998) First Workshop on Practice of Evaluation of the Health Promoting School: Models, Experiences and Perspectives, Bern/Thun, Switzerland, 19-22 November. Available at: http://www.euro.who.int/ENHPS/publications/20020226_2 Accessed 12 May 2005. ENHPS (2001) Second Workshop on Practice of Evaluation of the Health Promoting School, Nottwil, Switzerland, 21-24 September. Available at: http://www.euro.who.int/ENHPS/publications/20020226_2 Accessed 12 May 2005. ENHPS (2004) Third Workshop on Practice of Evaluation of the Health Promoting School, Sigriswil, Switzerland, 20-21 November. (The report on the third workshop should be available from Summer 2006 through the ENHPS website) Jensen, B. B. (1995) (Ed) Health Education and Democracy, Workshop in Copenhagen 12-15 December 1994. Research Center for Environmental and Health Education, The Danish University of Education, Copenhagen. IUHPE (1999) The Evidence of Health Promotion Effectiveness, Brussels, International Union for Health Promotion and Education. King, A., Wold, B., Tudor-Smith, C. and Harel, Y. (1996) The Health of Youth: A CrossNational Survey, WHO Regional Publications, European Series No. 69, Copenhagen, WHO. Available from: http://www.hbsc.org/publications.html Accessed 12 May 2005. Stewart Burgher, M., Barnekow Rasmussen, V and Rivett, D. (1999) The European Network of Health Promoting Schools: The Alliance of Education and Health. Copenhagen, International Planning Committee of the ENPHS. Available at: http://www.euro.who.int/document/e62361.pdf Accessed 12 May 2005.

19

20

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

WHO (1997) First Conference of the European Network of Health Promoting Schools, Thessaloniki-Halkidiki, Greece, Available at: http://www.euro.who.int/document/e72971.pdf Accessed 12 May 2005. Young, I. (2002) Conference Report: Education and Health in Partnership: A European Conference on Linking Education with Health Promotion in Schools. Available at: http://www.euro.who.int/document/E78991.pdf Accessed 12 May 2005.

Section I Concepts and Theory

23

1

Health Promotion in Schools: The Radical Imperative Keith Tones

Introduction This chapter will argue that the symbiotic relationship between health education and healthy public policy is at the very heart of health promotion. It will assert that the most important function of health education is essentially radical and political and this should be reflected by what is taught in schools. First, though, it will be useful to give some thought to the major factors that determine the structure and operation of the curriculum in general.

Influences on the Curriculum One of the key features of the Health Promoting School initiative is its acknowledgement that the curriculum does not merely define what is taught but rather comprises the whole school experience – including its organizational structure and ethos – and the kinds of alliance established with the community and other external organizations. Ultimately the design of the curriculum results from the interaction of three main influences: • Ideologies – the values underpinning the curriculum. • Sociological and cultural factors. • Psychological factors.

24

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

The dynamics of their inter-relationship is shown in Figure 1 below.

Figur 1. Influences on the Curriculum (After Tones and Green, 2004)

Philosophical & Ideological Questions

Sociological & Cultural Questions

Aims of Education

School Reflects Cultural Norms

Psychological Questions

Type of Learning

CURRICULUM

School Organisation

DESIGN

Teaching Methods

Philosophy, Ideology and Values Schools cannot teach everything. Decisions must be made about what is most worthwhile in a particular culture and a choice must be made. The result of that choice is the curriculum – which is grounded in ideological and philosophical values. For instance, a particular government might be driven by an economic imperative and insist that its schools should ensure that pupils acquire the

Health Promotion in Schools: The Radical Imperative

skills and motivation needed for a successful enterprise culture. On the other hand, an educational philosopher might assert that the main purpose of schooling is to nurture children’s creative urges and to ensure that teachers foster young people’s mental, physical and social growth and development. Interestingly for those of us committed to health and social education, many educational philosophers have asserted that education must by definition be entered into voluntarily: i.e. it involves helping people make rational decisions based on critical understanding – otherwise it is mere instruction, or training, – or worse – brainwashing! The concept of ideology is open to a number of interpretations; it is generally, however, considered to be much more emotionally charged than philosophy. A more complete discussion of this notion is not possible here [see Tones and Green (2004) for an extended review in relation to health promotion]. In the context of the present chapter and its emphasis on the importance of empowerment, it is worth noting Giddens’ (1989:727) comment about ideology: Ideologies are found in all societies in which there are systematic and engrained inequalities between groups. The concept of ideology connects closely with that of power, since ideological systems serve to legitimize the differential power which groups hold. Eagleton (1991:xiii) not only reminds us about the relationship between ideology and power but emphasizes the insidious way in which this power is exerted: The most efficient oppressor is the one who persuades his underlings to love, desire and identify with his power; and any practice of political emancipation thus involves that most difficult of all forms of liberation, freeing ourselves from ourselves. Perhaps the most obvious example of this phenomenon is where an inequitable caste system characterizes a religious system. Where the process of indoctrination has been an integral part of primary socialization, lower castes will accept their inequality as right and proper – and a sign of ‘God’s’ love. There will be no need for religious education in school to do anything but remind pupils of the situation and indicate the implications!

25

26

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

Sociological and Cultural Factors As figure 1 demonstrates, Ideology is intimately related to Culture. The term socialization defines the process whereby the values and norms central to a particular culture or sub culture are transmitted. Indeed it is useful to view the school as a socialization agency that – consciously or unconsciously, formally or informally – seeks to instil beliefs and values that are central to the ideology of a given culture. These may reflect the dominant national and/or religious culture; they may contradict local cultures [thus creating culture clash]. Moreover, each school will have its own culture which may mirror, to a greater or lesser extent, dominant cultures; alternatively, schools may question or challenge cultural values. Indeed, one of the most important dimensions of the process of socialization is whether it is essentially conservative or creative. In fact, a major contention of this chapter is that schools should be creative rather than conservative agencies. In those political systems, which claim to be democratic, the school curriculum should, therefore, be designed to constantly challenge the status quo and promote democratic values. They should, therefore, routinely question cultural values in general and, more particularly, appraise them in the light of health promotion values [which are, incidentally, consonant with democratic values]. The Values of Health Promotion Ideology and culture determine the way health is defined [and even the interpretation of the determinants of health and illness]. Now, it is difficult and sometimes unwise to pontificate about the core values of health promotion but since most nations at least pay lip service to the canons of World Health Organization, we may confidently identify the following key values: • Health is holistic and not solely concerned with disease and its prevention. • Health is about equity and social justice. • Health is about empowerment. The values mentioned above are also fundamental to the Health Promoting School. Psychological Factors, Curriculum Design and Educational Methods If we refer again to figure 1 above, we can see that ultimately the translation of ideological and philosophical debate into practice involves rather more

Health Promotion in Schools: The Radical Imperative

technical developments, which involve a kind of ‘psychological task analysis’ based on appropriate learning theory. Whatever its goals, an essential feature of a successful educational enterprise involves providing the conditions necessary for efficient learning. This, in turn, would typically require an efficient analysis of the types of learning involved in achieving valued goals. Educators must also take account of the motivational factors that may influence pupils’ attitudes and commitment to action – and they must, of course, consider the developmental stage of the learners. For instance, it is self evident that providing knowledge about the effects of alcohol differs from creating responsible attitudes to alcohol use, which also differs from providing the social interaction skills needed to refuse alcohol – and the ‘psychomotor’ skills involved in providing first aid for friends who have over-dosed on drugs! Of course, learning theory is not completely neutral. Whatever teachers or psychologists may think, it is often permeated by ideological and cultural factors – for example, beliefs about the characteristics and capabilities of adolescents frequently reflect cultural expectations and prejudices. And the types of teaching methods used to achieve learning objectives are frequently governed by philosophical views about the nature and central purpose of education. On the other hand, it is important to recognize that ideological or philosophical commitment will not magically result in the relatively permanent changes in disposition or capability that characterize learning. Additionally, curriculum design requires decisions about, for instance, the logistical matters involved in creating a ‘whole school approach’ that ensures that the organization and ethos of the school is consistent with the principles and values of health promotion and the learning tasks addressed in the ‘taught curriculum’. Again, an understanding of the requirements of health-related learning should, ideally, result in the adoption of teaching methods designed to achieve learning goals with maximum efficiency – and, where necessary, the provision of appropriate teacher training in those methods with which they may be unfamiliar.

Health Promotion: A Contested Concept Health promotion is one of those concepts open to multiple interpretations. This is by no means helpful for planners and practitioners since some of these interpretations may be diametrically opposed! There is certainly agreement

27

28

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

that health promotion involves action – rather than, for example, being a purely academic subject. However, it is the nature of the health promotion action that may prove controversial. Two underlying reasons for the controversy may be identified. The first of these centres on different interpretations of health: accordingly some would argue that health promotion is primarily concerned with the prevention of and control of premature death, disease and disability. On the other hand, it might be argued that it should primarily be about achieving positive outcomes – such as ‘well being’, or a sense of coherence and control. Or again, some may believe that health promotion should seek to achieve both of those goals. A second difficulty derives from different assessments of the causes of health and ill health. Four main influences have regularly been identified: genetics, health services, individual life style and the environment in which we live, work and play. Arguably, the main source of controversy has been between, on the one hand, those who advocate major social and environmental change as the only effective means of promoting health and, on the other hand, those whose attention is focused on individual lifestyle change. In recent time, it is probably true to say that advocates of environmental change have been more vocal in their accusations that the individual focus is a form of ‘victim-blaming’ – a view that is consistent with the pronouncements of WHO. A third question should also be raised: where does health education feature in the debates and discussion about health promotion? Health Education and Healthy Public Policy: A Symbiotic Relationship The following ‘formula’ is helpful in identifying the part played by education in the health promotion enterprise:

Health Promotion = Healthy Public Policy

x

Health Education

The ‘formula’ acknowledges the fact that education alone is unlikely to achieve major changes – unless it is supported by health and social policy measures. An obvious example would be teaching about the importance of using contraceptives in circumstances where these were too expensive or not readily available. On the other hand, what has frequently been ignored is the fact that without education, many policy measures will simply not be implemented [see

Health Promotion in Schools: The Radical Imperative

earlier comments about ideology]. Consider also current concerns about the increase in obesity in children and their parents – at least in wealthier nations. It is possible to teach pupils and their parents about good nutrition such that they can correctly score at least 9 out of 10 in a knowledge test by reiterating the importance of avoiding saturated fats, salt, and fizzy drinks – and listing the benefits of eating fruit, vegetables and fibre. However, even if, in addition to knowing what they ought to eat, they have a positive attitude to healthy eating there is typically a number of social and environmental barriers to their actually adopting a healthy diet. For instance, lack of access to healthy food in school, at home and in local shops may well prevent positive attitudes being translated into practice – unless there is a serious attempt to create ‘healthy public policy’. All of this explains the current emphasis by public health planners on implementing healthy nutrition policy by such measures as food labelling, and restricting the advertising of unhealthy food on children’s television. However, as nutritionists and health promoters know to their cost, achieving policy changes is usually problematic. A powerful food industry – and its political allies – will not willingly surrender its profits by changing its products and reducing its advertising. It will assert the freedom of individuals to choose whether they want to eat healthy or unhealthy food. Unfortunately, as a result of a complex of psychosocial and socioeconomic factors, many individuals are not free to choose! Consequently, health education has a new role. Its prime concern is no longer with trying only to persuade individuals to adopt a healthy lifestyle; rather its new role is to influence policy makers by adopting a political stance and a revolutionary brand of ‘radical’ or ‘critical’ education. Radical-Political Health Education The term ‘critical health education’ has been used to refer to the use of tactics involving critical analysis of social and political factors that militate against health followed by action to tackle those factors. The term ‘radical-political’ is used here since it emphasizes that action is first of all based on analysis of the roots of health problems – and when these roots are social, cultural, environmental and socio-economic, political forces are marshalled in order to bring about social change. As Signal (1998:257) points out: Health promotion is an inherently political enterprise. Not only is it largely funded by government but the very nature of its activity suggests shifts in power. Its recognition that peace, shelter, food, income, a stable

29

30

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

ecosystem, sustainable resources, social justice and equity are basic prerequisites for health implies major redistribution in power and wealth. Although it has not been popular – for obvious political reasons – radical or critical education is not a new phenomenon. For instance in the 1960s, Hansen and Jensen (1969) produced The Little Red School Book in order to politicize pupils and help them challenge the very structure of their schools (in an assertive rather than aggressive manner!). The following extract provides a flavour of their approach: Grown-ups do have a lot of power over you: they are real tigers. But in the long run they can never control you completely: they are paper tigers… Children and grown-ups are not natural enemies. But grown-ups themselves have little real control over their lives. They often feel trapped by economic and political forces…. Cooperation is possible when grownups have realised this and have started to do something about it. If you discuss things among yourselves and actively try to get things changed, you can achieve a lot more than you think. We hope that this book will show you some of the ways in which you can influence your own lives… Again Postman and Weingartner (1969) argued that education should be an essentially ‘subversive activity’. It should, for instance, challenge religious dogma: … irrevocable commitment to any religion is not only intellectual suicide, it is positive unfaith because it closes the mind to any new vision of the world. (1969:19) Furthermore, Wren’s discussion of Education for Justice is based on a radicalpolitical perspective which also happens to be entirely compatible with WHO’s commitment to tackling inequity: Justice calls for the establishment of a society in both a global and national scale where each person has an equal right to the most extensive basic liberties compatible with a like liberty for all, where social and economic inequalities are so arranged that they are to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, and where they are linked with position

Health Promotion in Schools: The Radical Imperative

and appointments which are open to all through fair equality of opportunity. (Wren, 1977: 55 in Tones and Green, 2004) More recently Fien (1994) advocated a ‘critical theory’ approach having direct relevance to health education. His focus was on environmental education, which should not be merely teaching young people about threats to the environment but actually involving them in becoming ‘…agents of social change and sustainable development.’ And so a class of children might carry out a survey of pollution to local water supplies or take part in identifying threats to pedestrians in their local streets (using the occasion also to learn about appropriate statistical techniques). They might then analyse the results and lobby the local mayor and councillors. Such an event is newsworthy and local press and television reporters are eager to interview the children and their parents – and confront the mayor! As will be noted later, the school is thus at the centre of community health promotion and has become involved in ‘media advocacy’ – a mainstay of critical, radical health education and promotion. The Health Promoting School and The Empowerment Imperative As noted above, the notion of empowerment is central to the ideology of health promotion. It has frequently been described by WHO in terms of helping people gain control over their lives and their health. It comprises two related notions: i) individual or self-empowerment and ii) community empowerment. A full discussion of these concepts is not possible here (see Tones and Tilford, 2001 and Tones and Green, 2004 for a more comprehensive account). Suffice it to say that self-empowerment involves having a relatively high degree of control over one’s life and, therefore, one’s health. The following definition is from Tones and Tilford (2001:40): Self empowerment is a state in which an individual possesses a relatively high degree of actual power – that is, a genuine potential for making choices. Self empowerment is associated with a number of beliefs about causality and the nature of control that are health promoting. It is also associated with a relatively high level of realistically based self esteem together with a repertoire of life skills that contribute to the exercise of power over the individual’s life and health.

31

32

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

An empowered community fosters self-empowerment; self-empowered people contribute to an empowered community. A community without empowerment is fatally handicapped and is unlikely to take the kinds of political action necessary to create ‘healthy public policy’.

Strategies and Methods for Empowerment and Social Change The Settings Approach As Tones and Green (2004:270) have noted, A key feature of the settings approach is that it involves ensuring that the ethos of the setting and all the activities are mutually supportive and combine synergistically to improve the health and wellbeing of those who live or work or receive care there. It involves integrating health promotion into all aspects of the setting and including within its remit all those who come into contact with that setting. These fundamental characteristics of a health promoting school are noted throughout this book. I will merely reiterate here the importance of this requirement for empowering pupils, teachers – and families. The following two of the 12 key goals originally identified by the European Network of Health Promoting Schools relate directly to empowerment – and are still central to current thinking: • Create a school climate in which good relationships, respect and consideration for others flourish. • Actively promote opportunities which develop pupils’ self-esteem and self confidence, enabling them to take initiatives, make choices and exercise responsibility for their own and others’ health. (HEA, 1996) A second key feature of the ‘eco-holistic’ model of the Health Promoting School (Parsons et al., 1997) is its insistence that the school should be an integral part of the local community: it should not only use community resources but should also contribute to the community – and, as with the above example of environmental education, take ‘political’ action to change it.

Health Promotion in Schools: The Radical Imperative

Pedagogy: Teaching Methods for Empowerment Clearly, many teachers might be rather apprehensive about espousing a critical, radical approach to health promotion. This is understandable – especially in those circumstances where government exerts a close – and even repressive – control over the curriculum and where this is the case, the major concern becomes one of influencing government policy through advocacy and related political measures. Teachers may also feel uncomfortable, or just unfamiliar, with the teaching methods and approaches that are necessary to achieve the goals of the radical imperative. Accordingly I will now give some brief consideration to strategies and methods. Critical Consciousness Raising: the Approach of Freire Paulo Freire is arguably the best-known advocate of a radical, empowering approach to education. His philosophy was essentially humanistic and concerned with human dignity. He fought oppression and poverty – and the helplessness and alienation resulting from those ‘social pathogens’. Oppression, he argued, could be political or religious – and as he put it, ‘Sectarianism, fed by fanaticism, is always castrating.’ Oppressed people resort to ‘magical’ explanations of their lives and their world (Freire, 1972:132). As an example of the de-powering effect of religion, he quoted the words of a Chilean priest who visited him in 1966: … I went to see several families living in shanties in indescribable poverty. I asked them how they could bear to live like that, and the answer was always the same: ‘What can I do? It is the will of God and I must accept it.’ The ‘empowering’ teaching techniques adopted by Freire centred on critical consciousness raising (consçientizacao) which involved learning to recognise social, political and economic realities and thus challenge the perceptions of the world that resulted from ideological ‘brainwashing’. A central feature of Freirean education is encapsulated in the concept of praxis – the interactive process of action and reflection. Action without reflection is mere activism; reflection without action may involve mere detached intellectualism (see also Mogenson’s (1997) description of praxis and critical thinking in environmental education).

33

34

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

The pedagogical ‘technique’ employed by Freire was small group discussion using a visual aid to trigger debate and critical thinking. It is, therefore, apparently not dissimilar to approaches used in a large number of health and social education ‘teaching packs’. However, it differs significantly from those activities in which pupils seek desperately to guess the ‘right answer’ to what they think the teacher wants to know! Note Freire’s specification of the requirements of a culture circle: In order to be able to be a good coordinator for a ‘cultural circle,’ you need, above all, to have faith in man [sic], to believe in his possibility to create, to change things. You need to love. You must be convinced that the fundamental effort of education is the liberation of man, and never his ‘domestication’. You must be convinced that this liberation takes place to the extent that man reflects upon himself in relationship to the world in which, and with which, he lives… A cultural circle is a live and creative dialogue, in which everyone knows some things and does not know others, in which all seek, together, to know more. This is why you, as the coordinator of a cultural circle, must be humble, so that you can grow with the group, instead of losing your humility and claiming to direct the group, once it is animated. (Freire, 1972: 61) Clearly teachers may have their doubts about the relevance for schools in developed countries of a teaching method developed to counter the effects of oppressive South American cultures. It can, however, be argued that people in the ‘modern’ western world need to be liberated – e.g. from the victim blaming ideology! Moreover, many teachers will know at first hand the perilous state of many depressed inner city neighbourhoods which can indeed be dangerous and where alienation is certainly common. For instance consider the following example of a version of the culture circle used by peer facilitators. It centred on alcohol problems in ethnic minority groups in a U.S. city. A four-minute trigger film depicted the life of an Indian woman who visited an emergency centre drunk and who had been raped. The acronym ‘SHOWED’ was used to guide discussion (Wallerstein and Bernstein, 1988:386 cited by Tones and Green, 2004:233): S

What do we See here?

H

What is really Happening?

Health Promotion in Schools: The Radical Imperative

O

How does her story relate to Our lives?

W

Why has she become an alcoholic?

E

How can we become Empowered by our new social understanding?

D

What can we Do about these problems in our own lives?

Freirean Approach: Limitations Apart from the real threat of physical danger in some oppressive circumstances, there are limitations to Freire’s pedagogical approach if applied in its ‘pure form’. These relate to the relative effectiveness of the strategy, which may lack the power to tackle serious political barriers. In short we have proposed the supplementation of the critical consciousness-raising core of Freire’s formulation with two complementary strategies. These involve i) equipping learners with ‘life skills’ to enable them to carry out the radical agenda and ii) the establishment of ‘coalitions’ of the great, good – and relatively powerful to achieve political goals. Figure 2 below summarises the key features of the approach. Figur 2. Creating Empowerment for Social Action Critical Consciousness Raising and Praxis Media Advocacy Action Plans Community Coalition Life skills Training

EMPOWERED ACTION

SUCCESS

35

36

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

The key features of empowerment depicted in figure 2 above may still appear somewhat alien to teachers who are used to the traditional school system. However, it is important to note that the ‘settings approach’ fostered by WHO emphasises that the school setting should work closely with parents and the local community – as illustrated above with reference to environmental education. The collaboration may originate with the school or with parents or one or more other agencies in the community seeking to address key health issues. In other words a community coalition can develop and media advocacy may be a useful device in critical consciousness-raising. Again critical consciousness raising and praxis can originate within the school setting or from the heart of the local community. However, what is frequently ignored – and doubtless contributes to the failure of many projects – is the pedagogical understanding that teachers will ideally possess. For instance, the school is ideally placed to provide social interaction skills training as part of what some education systems describe as ‘personal and social education’. Some brief observations on life skills training should clarify their importance for radical health promotion. Life Skills: Training for Action Competence The teaching of life skills was popular in Britain in the early 1980s as part of ‘personal and social education’. Advocates of life skills teaching were concerned to make education more relevant to the major social issues and problems facing young people. Hopson and Scally (1981) were key figures in this movement. They argued that the central purpose of life skills teaching was empowerment. Their following introduction to a series of curriculum materials reveals this philosophy and summarises key elements of the skills in question: … a school should provide a basic survival kit for young people … they need to be taught skills like values clarification, decision-making, how to cope with crises, intellectual and emotional problem solving, helping, assertiveness, relationship building, how to find appropriate information and use personal and physical resources which are available in the community. They need to be made aware of themselves, others and the world around them, in order to become more self-empowered people.

Health Promotion in Schools: The Radical Imperative

In Denmark, Jensen has developed a very similar approach in his focus on action competences (see for instance, Jensen (2000) and Jensen, et al., 2000). Indeed the term is virtually synonymous with life skills. Logically it might be more appropriate to see ‘action competence’ as an outcome that results from successful life skills teaching: these outcomes might range from specific capabilities – such as leading a political group to more general outcomes such as empowerment which, would lead to the end point of achieving social and political goals. Figure 3 below presents a selection of key life skills following Hopson and Scally’s category system.

Figur 3. Life Skills and Community Action (after Hopson and Scally, 1980)

ME AND YOU Effective communication Managing conflict Making relationships Etc.

ME Literacy & Numeracy Being positive about self How to set goals Making effective decisions Etc.

SPECIFIC SITUATIONS: COMMUNITY How to develop and use my political awareness Etc.

ME AND OTHERS Assertiveness Skill in influencing systems Group skills Etc.

Essentially, Hopson and Scally argued that the life skills curriculum should provide three kinds of skill: individual skills; ‘dyadic’ social interaction skills (‘me and you’) and skills that helped individuals interact in groups. While ‘me and you’ and ‘me and others’ skills, focussed primarily on social interaction, ‘me’ skills not only included direct health related dispositions and capabilities, such as self esteem, but also acknowledged the importance of cognitive competences such as thinking, literacy and numeracy (note for instance the argument that much violent and self destructive behaviour stems from poor self esteem derived from illiteracy and innumeracy and subsequent problems

37

38

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

in getting a job). The fourth category identified by Hopson and Scally was not so much a group of life skills as an application of clusters of life skills to real life situations – e.g. working productively as a group and deploying assertiveness skills to influence the media and local politicians to tackle environmental problems. The acronym adopted by Jensen and colleagues as a framework for the achievement of action competences (IVAC) reveals key aspects of radical and empowering education. Investigation emphasises enquiry-based learning; Visions can be likened to the Freirean notion of praxis after critical consciousness raising; Action and Change focuses on the importance of social action for individuals and communities. Both the IVAC analysis and the specific skills shown in figure 3 above are of course central to related notions of political education. Crick and Lister use the term ‘political literacy’ to describe the objectives of political education: The ultimate test of political literacy lies in creating a proclivity to action not in achieving more theoretical analysis. The politically literate person would be capable of active participation (or positive refusal to participate) … The highly politically literate person should be able to do more than merely imagine alternatives … The politically literate person must be able to devise strategies for influence and for achieving change. (Crick and Lister, 1978:41, cited by Fien, 1994:53). Simovska and Jensen (2003) provide a valuable and practical example of the application of the principles mentioned above in their work on alcohol with young people. Their action research demonstrates not only successful democratic education but also participation and international collaboration using Internet links. They remind us of WHO assertion of the central purpose of the health promoting school, which is by definition: …founded on democratic principles… [it] improves young people’s abilities to take action and generate change… Young people’s empowerment, linked to their visions and ideas, enables them to influence their lives and living conditions. (WHO, 1997)

Health Promotion in Schools: The Radical Imperative

Conclusion It would not be surprising if many teachers (whose work in health education has previously centred on, preventing diseases and has concentrated on problems such as drug abuse, preventing unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases) were puzzled or even dismayed at the assertions made in this chapter – and elsewhere in this book. They may even be inclined to reject these assertions – especially if ministerial curriculum guidelines are essentially concerned with preventive medicine. It is not possible to explore this situation in depth at this point. However, it is important to reiterate a number of key points: While it is certainly possible – and in some cases desirable – to use a specific health or disease topic as a starting point for exploring underlying causes, limitations on time and space typically make it impossible for the school curriculum to deal with all currently important diseases. This often results in schools focusing on issues that are currently causing political problems for government and dealing with those topics in a superficial and ineffective manner. As has been vigorously asserted in this chapter, the main sources of disease are social and environmental: accordingly addressing socioeconomic problems such as inequity and inequalities will provide a more effective and economic strategy for dealing with a wide range of specific medical problems. It follows, then, that schools should ideally avoid ‘vertical’ programmes (dealing with particular and specific health issues) but should adopt ‘horizontal’ programmes that address underlying causes. In short, a democratic empowering strategy involving radical-political activities should be the main concern of the health promoting school.

References Crick, B. and Lister, I. (1978) ‘Political literacy’ in B. Crick and A. Porter (eds), Political Education and Political Literacy. Longman: London. Eagleton, T. (1991) An Introduction to Ideology. Verso: London. Fien, J. (1994) ‘Critical theory, critical pedagogy and critical praxis in environmental education.’ In B. B. Jensen and K. Schnack (Eds) Action and Action Competence as Key Concepts in Critical Pedagogy. Royal Danish School of Educational Studies: Copenhagen.

39

40

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

Freire, P. (1972) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Penguin: Harmondsworth. Giddens, A. (1989) Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press. Health Education Authority (1996) European Network of Health Promoting Schools. London: HEA. Hopson, B. and Scally, M. (1981) Lifeskills Teaching. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill. Jensen, B.B. (2000) ‘Health knowledge and health education in the democratic health-promoting school’. Health Education, 100, 4, 146-53. Jensen, B.B., Schnack, K. and Simovska, V. (Eds). (2000) Critical Environmental and Health Education: Research Issues and challenges. Research Centre for Environmental and Health Education, Copenhagen: Danish University of Education. Mogensen, F. (1997) ‘Critical thinking: a central element in developing action competence in health and environmental education’, Health Education Research, 12, 4, 429-36. Parsons, C., Stears, D., Thomas, C., Thomas, L. and Holland, J. (1997) The implementation of ENHPS in Different National Contexts. Centre for Health Education and Research, Christ Church College, Canterbury. Postman, N. and Weingartner, C. (1969) Teaching as a Subversive Activity. Penguin: Harmondsworth. Signal, L. (1998) ‘The politics of health promotion’, Health Promotion International, 13, 3, 257-63. Simovska, V. and Jensen, B.B. (2003) Young-Minds.Net: Lessons Learnt. Copenhagen: Danish University Press. Tones, K. and Green, J. (2004) Health Promotion: Planning and Strategies. London: Sage. Tones, K. and Tilford, S. (2001) Health Promotion: Effectiveness, Efficiency and Equity. (3rd edn.) Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes. Wallerstein, N. and Bernstein, E. (1988) ‘Empowerment education: Freire’s ideas adapted to health education’, Health Education Quarterly, 15, 4, 379-94. WHO (1997) Conference Resolution, 1st conference of the European Network of Health Promoting Schools. WHO Regional Office for Europe: Copenhagen. Wren, B. (1977) Education for Justice. London: SCM Press.

41

2

Complexity and the Health Promoting School Derek Colquhoun

Introduction My role is to raise questions in an effective, genuine way, and to raise them with the greatest possible rigour, with the maximum complexity and difficulty so that a solution doesn’t spring from the head of some reformist intellectual or suddenly appear in the head of a party’s political bureau. The problems I try to pose…that concern everyday life – cannot easily be resolved. …I take care not to dictate how things should be. I try instead to pose problems, to make them active, to display them in such a complexity that they can silence the prophets and the lawgivers, all those who speak for others or to others. In this way it will be possible for the complexity of the problem to appear in its connections with people’s lives. (Foucault, 2000: 288 cited in Rhedding-Jones, 2003:10) These comments by Foucault underscore very real concerns that I have felt about health promoting schools for many years. The health promoting school movement has been advocated vociferously by many individuals and organizations (myself included!) across the globe, yet in my view, we still don’t really understand why or how health promoting schools do or do not work. The relationship for example, between children’s health and academic achievement is one that continuously perplexes me, yet it is a goal for so many – a goal which is often unattainable because of factors in children’s lives outside of their school life. Indeed, measuring whether or not health promoting schools ‘work’ has taxed researchers and evaluators for many years. Often these research projects and evaluations define out, simplify, or edit out ‘complex

42

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

variables’, relationships, structures and processes in an attempt to gain insight into the complex organizations that are schools. This chapter will address some of these issues and by using the metaphor of schools as complex adaptive systems, will begin to ask whether we can, or need to, understand health promoting schools in a more sophisticated way – a way that celebrates complexity rather than trying to control for it as in typical research and evaluation projects. My emphasis on this use of metaphor owes much to Morgan’s (1997: 4) argument that ‘all theories of organization and management are based on implicit images or metaphors that lead us to see, understand, and manage organizations in distinctive yet partial ways’. There are several reasons for me wanting to write this chapter. The first is a very real frustration with the way some school communities are treated by, in particular, some health-based researchers. Some health-based researchers appear to see school communities simply as sites for data gathering. I accept there may be different perceptions of this relationship in different countries, but in my experience as a parent, teacher, school governor and researcher, the experience is very much one of ‘being researched on.’ There is often very little commitment by researchers to the professional development needs of the different members of the school community. Some teachers have commented to me that feel they have been ‘plundered’ – all of their good practices, policy developments and subject specific knowledge have all been ‘taken’ by researchers to meet their own needs yet little or no feedback is given to teachers. Rightly, in my view, many head teachers are now demanding that researchers provide feedback to school communities as a condition of their entry to the school. Second is an on-going sense of disbelief that all actors or agents in school communities are not represented one way or another in project reports and evaluations of health promoting school activities. School communities are often the last to be consulted over the nature and form of evaluations located within their communities. Third, as an evaluator who is responsible for significant evaluation projects, is a concern that evaluations of health promoting school projects should consider the messiness or complexities of school communities and develop evaluation designs to take these into account. Even case studies of health promoting school communities often fail to represent the full breadth, depth and richness of their activities. In raising this as an issue I also hope that research and evaluation funding bodies will begin to stipulate to researchers

Complexity and the Health Promoting School

and evaluators that they need designs to grapple with complexity. I will return to this point in more detail later in the chapter. Fourth, is the recognition that school communities find themselves in a context that is dynamic, changing and evolving. This dynamic environment includes policy, organizational and structural changes at local, regional, national and international levels. For instance, in England currently there is a massive re-alignment occurring between education, health and social care policy at local and national levels. This re-alignment will have a dramatic effect on the nature of schooling for many young people as well as the services provided to them. School communities are not isolated islands or structures: rather they are bounded with other systems and structures in a way that is changing day by day. So, at one level, this chapter is a political task for me: political in the sense of wanting to position school communities in a much more empowered location within research and evaluation, specifically as they relate to health promoting school projects. In addition, the chapter should also be a signal to health based researchers that they need to develop a greater understanding of school communities, not as is often the case and as I mentioned earlier, to attempt to control the activities of school communities to gather ‘better’ data, but rather to celebrate their complexity and messiness. Complexity is the ‘new business buzzword’ in the US, where its ‘big attraction’ is its ‘recognition’ of the unpredictable, messy and complicated nature ‘of the world, of human beings and of organizations’. (Illing, 2002:32. Cited by Kelly and Colquhoun, 2005 in press) It goes without saying that contemporary western schools and education systems are becoming more and more complex as they attempt to cater for their increasingly diverse students and populations. There are greater demands on all actors within schools: teachers, head teachers, children, parents and support workers. There is a greater (unfortunately) climate of surveillance and control (especially in England), imposing more and more demands on all staff in schools. Schools are also coming under increased societal (and media) pressure to solve all the ills of modern society. Work-life balance is becoming a pipedream for many workers in schools as demands increase – demands not only from others in the education system but also from workers now in other systems such as health, social care (or welfare), and environment. This inter-relatedness between systems will only increase as we go further into the second half of the decade and beyond.

43

44

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

The aim of this chapter is to help us to begin to understand health promoting schools as complex adaptive systems. This metaphor enables us to view health promoting schools through a more sophisticated lens which allows us to identify the many features of health promoting schools that are often neglected, ignored or marginalised in research and evaluation projects. Throughout the chapter I will be drawing on my extensive experience with health promoting schools in Australia and as a manager of several evaluations of healthy school schemes in England. I will also illustrate the chapter with examples from a large research project investigating the relationship between the provision of free healthy school meals to primary age children in a city in England with their educational attainment/achievement, health and social capital.

Health Promoting Schools as Complex Adaptive Systems According to Plesk and Greenhalgh (2001: 625) a complex adaptive system is a collection of individual agents with freedom to act in ways that are not always totally predictable, and whose actions are interconnected so that one agent’s actions changes the context for other agents. The notion of different ecosystems comes to mind and we can think of such examples from the animal world as nests of termites (or ants) and coral on the Great Barrier Reef. In the human world just about any group of workers or relatives living or working together could be considered a complex system. Within any complex system, such as a school, there may be several other systems – such as departments, year groups, classes, even committees and working parties. I have found Plesk and Greenhalgh (2001) particularly useful in simplifying the notion of complex adaptive systems! They suggest there are several basic concepts that help us to understand complex adaptive systems. Later in the chapter I try to illustrate these principles with examples from health promoting schools projects. Fuzzy Boundaries Unlike traditional machine metaphors where input is linked to output, and form, structure and processes are pretty well defined, schools as complex adaptive systems have fuzzy boundaries. In Victoria in Australia for example, ‘school community’ is a term used to describe a broader understanding of the

Complexity and the Health Promoting School

different agents involved in and across schools (although in my experience of schools in England the involvement of ‘broader’ agents, even parents, is often resisted by many schools). However, we have no universally accepted definition of what a school community is, nor a deep conceptualisation of the benefits of using the term. For example, there are very real and significant differences in definition of a health promoting school between the National Healthy Schools Standard (England), the Australian Health Promoting Schools Association and the European Network of Health Promoting Schools. In addition, a term currently in vogue is ‘whole school approach’. Yes, we have different models of what this means for health promoting schools (see NHMRC, 1996) but examples of how these models have been used in practice are few and far between (largely because of all the issues I mentioned earlier). Of significance in England at the moment is a move to establish Departments of Children’s Services which will incorporate Departments of Education, Social Care and even Health. This is a significant departure from traditional discipline boundaries and the real effects of this are yet to be seen or felt. However, what is clear at this stage is that there will be new ways of working for all those from education, social care and health. There will also be new funding streams, projects and initiatives emanating from Departments of Children’s Services – all of which will impact on the fuzziness of the boundaries between these three areas. This will of course, impact significantly on health promoting schools in particular as the new model of Children’s Services will mean that schools will be involved in direct service provision for children in and outside of school. Actions based on internalised rules Complex adaptive systems involve agents’ actions based on internalised rules. As with most systems schools often do not make these internalised rules explicit: teachers, children and parents are often expected to acquire these rules by acting like sponges and soaking up these rules. Not only are rules often internalised but so too is language (which can be a form of rule), and there is an expectation that the ‘right’ language (and often acronym!) is used in the ‘right’ place across the system. A difficulty facing new or probationary teachers, for example, is that often they do not understand or appreciate these internalised rules and do not anticipate their importance.

45

46

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

Agents and systems are adaptive Plesk and Greenhalgh (2001) also suggest that agents and systems are adaptive. By this they mean that actors (e.g. administrators, teachers, children and parents), continually change their behaviours and actions to suit the context within which they find themselves. Systems are nested within other systems and co-evolve Systems according to Plesk and Greenhalgh (2001) are embedded within other systems and often co-evolve. As I mentioned earlier, in England there currently is a move nationally with respect to children’s services to join education, social care and even health. From our experience with our different research and evaluation projects different models for this are evolving across the country at different rates with different levels of success. Several things are certain: England will end up with non-educators managing education in many of its Local Education Authorities; teachers and school managers will have new demands placed on them as the different systems co-evolve together; and schools will be expected to design, fund and deliver a variety of activities otherwise unknown or not very common within a school’s current remit. Schools in England are also closely connected to the university system through various accreditation processes. For example, many schools are heavily involved in the education of teachers through the Graduate Training Programme – a programme of school-based training that is often validated by universities. In our experience schools also are coming under increased pressure to be members of Learning Networks and even Federations. These often involve schools working together for a common aim, project or even whole school reorganization or restructuring. Tensions and paradox are natural features of complex adaptive systems Complex adaptive systems, as they interact with other systems, often produce tensions and paradox. Different systems may have different expectations, understandings of each other, ways of working, language, aims, targets, practices, internalised rules and so on. Partnership working, which in England is seen as the way forward for many organizations (including schools and universities) is fraught with possibilities for difficulties, competition and, co-operation! It is tempting for a manager to try to control out these tensions and paradox. However, I would urge us to resist this temptation and instead celebrate these tensions and look for opportunities to use these tensions in a fruitful and productive way.

Complexity and the Health Promoting School

As health promoting schools interact with other systems they also become involved either by accident or design with a whole range of partners. For example, we are currently evaluating one Healthy School Award Scheme in England which involves 29 ‘official’ partners (ranging from the police, health departments, head teachers associations, employment services, school nurses, youth associations, youth offenders team, drug prevention agencies and even the museum service) and countless other unofficial partners. As we have found throughout the evaluation, the degree to which these partners explicitly or implicitly support the aims of the health promoting schools award scheme vary enormously from having a policy where health promoting schools are central to everything the partner does, to not having a policy at all and no reporting structures or processes for their partnership working. In addition, each of these partners brings with them a myriad of policies (and different language) within which the health promoting schools scheme needs to sit if the partnership is to prosper and develop. It goes without saying that health professionals and education professionals use a very different language. Part of the problem with partnership working is for all the partners to come to an agreed language that all partners are familiar with and can use productively. The language difficulties encountered in one of our evaluations of a health promoting school scheme involved such terms as: service level agreements, steering group, joint commissioning group, interventions, strategy, action plans, outcomes, task force and action zones. Such terminology can cause significant difficulties for health promoting schools as they struggle their way through the maze of policies. New and novel behaviour Health promoting schools as complex adaptive systems continually emerge and exhibit novel behaviour. One feature of the definition of health promoting schools, which is different to initiatives in other curriculum areas is that there is almost universal agreement that health promoting schools are continuously evolving. Indeed, they can evolve in unique and novel ways: one health promoting school might take an initiative and develop it one way whilst another health promoting school might develop the same initiative in a completely different way. Health promoting schools are able to develop differently in different countries. In Australia for example, there is not the same sense of control and surveillance on health promoting schools as there is in England. This diversity of the concept and its malleability should be celebrated

47

48

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

and encouraged. This is very difficult within a system of standards, control, certification and award schemes, and suggests that those in control fail to trust their complex adaptive systems to emerge and evolve in ways that would be useful to them. Health promoting schools are messy and non-linear Health promoting schools can be very messy. For example, planned activities often do not happen (for all sorts of reasons) – research interventions are sometimes forgotten as schools struggle to achieve (yet) another target, teachers sometimes change their lesson plans at the last minute to capitalise on another learning opportunity and so on. This not a criticism but a fact. I certainly am not suggesting that we try to clean up this messiness, rather we should try to understand why and how this messiness is occurring and how it impacts on health promoting schools and vice versa. Traditional understandings of schools (often promoted by policy makers) rely on a linear model of input and output. However, spending five minutes talking with a teacher or head teacher will reveal how complex schools actually are. Decisions by a head teacher for example, do not necessarily lead to changes in staff or student behaviour, while an incident in the playground might have more effect than any decision made by a head teacher. The unpredictable nature of complex adaptive systems With this in mind it is easy to see how health promoting schools understood as complex adaptive systems, can be highly unpredictable. In one project I am involved with, there were a series of unintended outcomes as a result of a particular intervention through the provision of free healthy school meals for primary age children. These included: • A perceived diminished trust by members of the public over the source of the funding for the project • Not all schools were able to start the initiative at the same time (meaning different types of intervention were eventually implemented) • More canteen supervisors and road crossing personnel had to be employed by schools, and there were more volunteers in schools • The school day for some schools had to be lengthened to cater for more children having lunch at school (some schools had to have 2 sittings for lunch) • Some children who qualified for free school lunches refused to have the free healthy school lunch, and finally

Complexity and the Health Promoting School

• Some head teachers saw the intervention as yet another budget they had to manage. So what was a good idea at the time provided school communities with many unforeseeable consequences. Complex adaptive systems have inherent patterns Despite having commented on the non-linear and unpredictable nature of complex adaptive systems, many schools still do have identifiable patterns! The obvious one in schools is the timetable, which regulates everyone’s behaviour. Working within, between and beyond the timetable is a challenge some schools are beginning to grapple with as they try to apply the health promoting school concept to their own context. Other initiatives such as the ‘creative school’ are also encouraging schools to go beyond the traditional restrictions of the timetable. Different actors in complex adaptive systems have different characteristics As I mentioned earlier health promoting schools involve interactions between many groups of actors – not least of which are the children themselves. All the professionals working within health promoting schools have different needs and wants (such as professional development needs) and children equally have different needs and wants depending largely on their stage of development, learning styles, ability and background. Understanding this means that a ‘one size fits all’ approach to curriculum or other health promoting school activities could be unproductive. Recognising diversity will be one of the biggest challenges facing health promoting schools in the next decade. Tsoukas and Hatch (2001) incorporate and extend most of the principles and basic concepts of complex adaptive systems suggested by Plesk and Greenhalgh (2001) when they outline what they call the 5 ‘universal’ priorities of complex systems. These include: • Complex systems are non-linear • Complex systems are fractal (they present irregular forms or shapes) • Complex systems exhibit recursive symmetries (there may be ‘turbulent’ systems within broader systems) • Complex systems are sensitive to initial conditions (development of the agents and the system is dependent on the initial reason for the system in the first place), and

49

50

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

• Complex systems are replete with feedback loops (causing constant change and development of the agents and the systems). Papaioannou and Pashiardis (2004) also suggest that we need to consider different dimensions when we consider schools as complex adaptive systems. These include: horizontal differentiation (the number and type of subject specialisations in the school and the number of school objectives), vertical differentiation (the number and type of formal and informal hierarchies), spatial differentiation (an understanding of place and space), and knowledge complexity (the qualifications of the staff and the types of subjects taught).

A Comment on Evaluation As I mentioned in the introduction to this chapter, evaluation related to the health promoting school concept has been a source of frustration for me for many years. In my view some health based researchers, using the ‘plundering’ model I mentioned earlier, either deliberately or sub-consciously set school communities up to fail, largely as a result of any real engagement of these school communities with the evaluation, design, planning, implementation or dissemination/ feedback. I try to think of research on a continuum: Research

ON – IN – THROUGH – WITH – FOR – BY

Schools

With ‘research on’ school communities being typical, and ‘research by’ school communities an example of an empowered school community able to recognise, understand and use the complexities of their own school community. To grapple with some of these complexities across health promoting school communities we are using Realistic Evaluation (Pawson and Tilley, 1997) as our framework. Central to such an approach is answering the question ‘what works for whom in what circumstances’? More specific questions could include: ‘does the health promoting school work’, ‘under what circumstances does the health promoting school work’, ‘how do health promoting school programmes work’, and ‘for whom do they work?’ Within such an approach, history and contextuality are seen as key sources of influence on programme outputs and effects, not sources of variation to be ‘controlled for’ as in traditional experimental designs.

Complexity and the Health Promoting School

For those working within a Realistic Evaluation framework, the key to understanding how programmes work lies in identifying the ‘Context Mechanism Outcome Configurations’ (often referred to as the ‘CMO’ configuration) that are present within them. In other words, specific impacts, outputs and outcomes arise only in specific sets of circumstances. Learning more about these circumstances, and the causal influences within them, is what may lead to useful knowledge for the fine-tuning and scaling up of programmatic initiatives. Such understanding is of clear policy relevance for the longer-term development of the health promoting school concept and for what Pawson and Tilley (1997) call ‘enlightenment’ between research and policy. Using this approach with three different health promoting school programmes we’ve been able to examine how different contexts have different mechanisms working within them and how the interaction of these two produce different health and education outcomes.

Conclusion At a metaphorical level an understanding of complex adaptive systems gives us new way insights into health promoting schools. We can appreciate their fuzzy boundaries, internalised rules, adaptive nature, embeddedness within other systems, tensions and paradox, novel behaviour, inherent non-linearity, unpredictability, the different characteristics of the different actors within them and their patterning. The implications of seeing health promoting schools as complex places are many and varied. For instance, we need to, in the first instance, understand and describe health promoting school initiatives through a complex adaptive systems lens (perhaps starting by using the principles outlined by Plesk and Greenhalgh). Second, we need to appreciate how policy and practice ‘fit’ into our model of complex adaptive systems as applied to health promoting schools. As I have argued elsewhere for example (Kelly and Colquhoun, 2005), the management of teacher stress could be seen as a management response to the increasingly complex demands placed on teachers and in fact may even be seen as an individualised response by teachers to a complex and messy working environment. Third, we need far more sophisticated and sensitive evaluation and research methodologies that take into account programme and school complexities and which do not attempt to edit out variance and messiness.

51

52

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

Finally, how can we use our heightened awareness of health promoting schools as complex adaptive systems to bring about structural, policy, organizational and programmatic change or transformation?

Acknowledgements I would like to thank the editors of this book for their helpful and thoughtful comments. Some of the ideas in the chapter were developed as a result of discussions with Steve Allender, Pat Downes, Peter Kelly and Nigel Wright.

References Kelly, P and Colquhoun, D (2005) ‘The edge of chaos and the professionalisation of stress management: metaphor and the construction of problem spaces in research and management’, submitted to Organisation. Morgan, G (1997) Images of Organisations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. National Health and Medical Research Council, (1996) Effective School Health Promotion: Towards Health Promoting Schools, Canberra, Australian Government Publication Service. (Available at: http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/ publications/pdf/ph14.pdf Accessed 25 April 2005) Papaioannou, M. and Pashiardis, P. (2004) ‘Complexity theory as an alternative to school restructuring’, Paper presented at ‘Educational Leadership in Pluralistic Societies: The 2004 Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration and Management Regional Conference, October 24-26, Shanghai. (Available at: http://web.hku.hk/~cel2004/Proceedings/033MariaPapaioannou.doc Accessed 25 April 2005) Pawson, R. and Tilley, N. (1997) Realistic Evaluation, London: Sage. Plesk, P. E. and Greenhalgh, T. (2001) ‘Complexity science: the challenge of complexity in health care’, British Medical Journal, 323, 7313, 625-629. (Available through http://www.bmj.com Accessed 25 April 2005) Rhedding-Jones, J (2003) ‘Complexity in research: the risky business of including it’, Paper presented at the Combined Annual Conference of the New Zealand and Australian Associations for Research in Education. 30 November – 3 December 2003, Auckland. (Available at: http://www.aare.edu.au/03pap/rhe03254.pdf Accessed 25 April 2005)

Complexity and the Health Promoting School

Tsoukas, H and Hatch, M (2001) ‘Complex thinking, complex practice: the case for narrative approach to organizational complexity’, Human Relations, 54, 8, 979-1013.

53

55

3

From the Health Promoting School to the Good and Healthy School: New Developments in Germany Peter Paulus

Introduction At the 1st International Conference of the World Health Organization (WHO) on Health Promotion, that took place in Ottawa (Canada) in 1986, a charter was passed that pointed the way ahead for health promotion, including the central importance of ‘settings’ (WHO 1992). It took some years to develop a settings approach to health promotion for schools, but in the early 1990’s various countries in Europe joined the European Network of Health Promoting Schools (ENHPS), to promote the idea of the Health Promoting School. The progress of this movement and the variety of implementation processes and structures is documented in several publications (Piette, Tudor-Smith, Rivett, Rasmussen and Ziglio 1995; Parsons, Stears, Thomas, Thomas and Holland 1997; StewartBrown 2001; Tones and Green 2004). These reports show that the structures of existing educational and health systems and the location of a national support centre, are of utmost importance for the further development of health promoting school initiatives. In Germany the national support centre was imbedded in the educational system. The Ministries of Education and the highest authorities of the senates have since 1990, carried out three pilot tests in schools within the education sector in the Federal Republic of Germany, supported by the Bund-Länder Commission for educational planning and research promotion. During the final phase of the last project about 500 schools were involved. • ‘Gesundheitsförderung im schulischen Alltag’, (‘Health promotion in daily school routines’) 1990-1993, limited to Schleswig-Holstein (Barkholz and Homfeldt 1993)

56

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

• ‘Netzwerk Gesundheitsfördernde Schulen’, (‘Network of health promoting schools’) 1993-1997 (Barkholz and Paulus 1998) • ‘OPUS – Offenes Partizipationsnetz und Schulgesundheit. Gesundheitsförderung durch vernetztes Lernen’, (‘Open network of participation and health in schools. Health promotion by net-based learning’) 1997-2000 (Barkholz, Gabriel, Jahn and Paulus 2001). Since 1993 Germany has participated in the second two pilot tests as a member of the ENHPS, which comprises 41 different country networks, in order to implement the innovative idea of a health promoting school at that time. Nowadays, in the course of the current discussions in terms of educational policy and pedagogy of reforming the education system, a new phase of work on health promotion in schools has begun, focusing on the conception of a ‘good and healthy school’ as a further development of the settings approach of the health promoting school. This kind of school strives for improving its educational success by focusing on the implementation of a good school that takes advantage of specific health interventions.

Previous Developments: From Health Promotion in Schools to Health Pro-moting Schools and its Networks The Health Promoting School has become the main concept of WHO strategies of health promotion within the education system. Compared to the traditional health education and also to approaches of training ‘life-skills’, this strategy is more effective since it is able to integrate health topics in schools with a lasting influence (Parsons et al., 1997; Stewart Burgher, Barnekow Rasmussen and Rivett 1998; International Union for Health Promotion and Education 1999; Denman, Moon, Parsons and Stears 2001). The settings approach of health promotion in schools may be defined as follows: The health promoting school declares health to be its most important goal by introducing a process in schools with the objective to create a setting that on the one hand contributes to fostering life skills of school children with regard to health, and on the other hand promotes health for all participants of daily school life referring to schools as a work and study place at the same time. The overall target is the improvement of educational quality within schools (Paulus 1995; Paulus and Brückner 2000).

New Developments in Germany

During the last ten years new approaches to health education in schools have been developed and successfully been tested by applying the abovementioned approach. In Germany, the changes may be summarized in eight trends that have primarily been determined by the three pilot tests referred to above (Paulus 1998): 1) From the mission of ‘health education’ to the one of ‘health promotion’ Today, the traditional notion of health education as a curriculum subject has been replaced by the broader more holistic concept of ‘health promotion,’ which finds current expression for educational systems in the concept of a health promoting school. 2) From the biomedical concept of organism to human beings understood as individuals and to health as integral part of it Classical health education tended to be informed by a bio-medical model of health, which understood the body as a complex machine. This approach has been replaced by a view of health as a construction involving an inter-play of physical, psychological, social, ecological and spiritual dimensions making up a complex whole. 3) From school children to school community and school development Whereas traditional health education life skills training were focused on young people, the health promoting school concentrates on all participating groups involved in the life of the school in its local community. It emphasizes that health within schools is a matter for everybody. From this perspective schools as institutions are seen as having a significant potential influence on health and that health-promoting structures can be strengthened within schools by appropriate organizational, personnel and curriculum development. 4) From the setting of the school to an open participative network of schools and cooperation partners Health promotion as a setting approach is not just reduced to the individual school. The resources arising from the participative networking of schools and external cooperation partners are also considered important. The health promoting school benefits on all levels from the exchange of experiences and joint developments which external partners and networks make possible

57

58

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

5) From risk orientation to a concept focused on Salutogenesis Whereas traditional health education concentrates on risks, health promotion in schools, in line with approach of life skills training is orientated towards protecting and improving health. It mainly focuses on health resources and sources of health that is on what Antonovsky (1997) refers to as Salutogenesis (as opposed to Pathogenesis, or processes leading to a breakdown of health). Autocratic forms of pedagogy symbolized by a raised forefinger and deterrence didactics has not proved attractive for young people and have gained little success. Moreover, the pedagogical value is very doubtful, because it demonstrates only a negative point of view of reality for young people. While the world is full of risks, it is important to important to stress that the world is full of hope as well, and to highlight pleasure and optimism in life for young people (Schneider, 1993). 6) From individual health behaviour to healthy lifestyle committed to sociocultural factors Health promotion in schools understands itself as a social and socio-political project. The socio-cultural lifestyles of young people, of teachers, of other workers in the school and members of the local community definitely ranks higher within the framework of health promoting schools than within the traditional approach to health education as a curriculum subject. Health promotion in schools is an approach that is able to link people within and outside schools in solidarity and counters negative approaches that can be called ‘victim blaming’. 7) From individual health behaviour to a setting related healthy lifestyle Health promotion in schools increasingly takes the environment and the living circumstances of people into consideration. In addition to the community (Healthy City), the workplace (Workplace Health Promotion) and the hospital (Healthy Hospital), the school is such a setting. This orientation favours a rejection of health education, which is fixed on the individual behaviour of young people and tends to negate social causes of health problems and may regard them as a matter of individual behaviour to be addressed through medication.

New Developments in Germany

8) From a concept of norms and disciplines to an explicitly democratic and emancipatory concept involving participation and empowerment Health promotion in school is dedicated to the credo of support for selfdetermination over the conditions of health and the strengthening of health. It rejects traditional paternalistic training concepts. Active participation and responsibility, as well as refreshing self-determined energies are the central strategies (Haug 1991). The international experience with this settings approach led to systematic descriptions of activity characteristic of this approach (Weare, 2000; St.Leger, 2000). Table 1 provides an overview of such a systematic framework highlighting factors both within (numbers) and outside the school context (letters).

Table 1. Field of action (inside) and principles (outside) of the health promoting school

Salutogenesis (e)

Teaching, learning

School culture

Curriculum

Environment of schools

(1)

(2)

Participation/

Health promoting

Empowerment/

school

Internal/ external

Legal commitment

networking

(d)

(c) Services

Health management

Cooperation

in schools

Partners

(4)

(3) Integral concept of health and influencing factors (b)

Sustainable initiatives for school development (a)

59

60

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

The fields of action may be characterized as follows: Teaching and learning: this field concerns both health as a topic of teaching and learning as well as a health promoting didactic and methodology of teaching and learning: (e.g. integral learning, with all senses; movement and learning; classes with rhythmic; significant learning). School life and environments of schools: this field appeals to both health as a principle of school culture and as a principle of structural modifications in schools (e.g. psychosocial climate; school playgrounds as a living place and place to spend free time; relaxing area and area of retreat; classes as places of movement; lights and colours as creative elements to promote well-being). Cooperation and services: this field involves the integration of external partners and psychosocial/ medical services in order to strengthen health promotion (e.g. psychological services in schools, public health departments, paediatric help, youth welfare, health insurance companies). Health management in schools: this field deals with the development and application of principles and strategies of health promotion in school organizations. The system of health management in schools is a systematically implemented management integrated in schools, which contains different quality indicators. It consists of elements of management, structure, process and quality of results (Bertelsmann Foundation und Böckler Foundation 2000), each of them referring to the other in the perspective of the school as an organizational institution. Management style, school culture and climate, working attitude and satisfaction as well as organizational learning are some of the most important fields. The principles mentioned in the outside boxes: Sustainable development initiatives of school development: health promotion in schools must be understood as an impulse for development of schools. It strives for being part of school development and not for being initiated as single event that takes place in an isolated way without having a sustainable effect on the school.

New Developments in Germany

Integral idea of health: following the health definition of the WHO (1948), health within the health promoting school is considered to be integral as a physical, psychological, social, ecological and spiritual balance of well-being. By emphasizing the subjective factors of health and by stressing the state of being healthy, the subjective character of a human being is involved. One of the most important targets of health promotion is the integration of the individual person in processes of change. Variety of health determination: being healthy may be determined by various factors. It is not just influenced by behaviour, but depends as well on genetic factors, on socio-cultural conditions (e.g. the education system of the school) and on the health system. Finally, all these conditions are linked with each other and influence each other. Self-determination, participation and empowerment: the school itself decides about the health problems it deals with and it wants to work on. Ideally, each group within a school (schoolchildren, teachers, parents, personnel outside the classroom) is involved with its requirements and expectations. Salutogenesis: the orientation towards Salutogenesis (Antonovsky, 1997) is a further central characteristic of the health promoting school. The main principles are to strengthen people within schools, to support them in finding and keeping self-confidence (feeling of feasibility), to help make their lives worth living and meaningful (feeling of usefulness), and to help them to understand the world around them (feeling of comprehension) (Bengel, Strittmatter and Willmann 2001). Within the context of the three pilot tests outlined at the start of this chapter, together with other projects, (e.g. the Lions-Quest program ‘To Become an Adult’, and the programs ‘Class 2000’ and ‘Fit and strong for Life’) considerable contributions in the field of teaching, learning, and curriculum development have been made (e.g. Burow, Aßhauer and Hanewinkel 1998; 1999; Hollederer and Bölcskei 2000; Medusana Foundation 2002). However, it is important to highlight two explicit and obvious deficits of the health promoting school perspective in order to consider how the approach might be improved, and to examine other perspectives that promise a greater

61

62

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

success for health promotion in schools on a long-term basis without renouncing the achievements of previous developments: Slow growth of health promoting schools Although, except from Bavaria, all Federal states participated in the last two pilot tests of the Bund-Länder Commission, just a few have implemented the setting concept systematically apart from those schools integrated in the OPUS network of North-Rhine Westphalia. Even supposing that most of the schools are not able to cope with the high challenge of implementing the concept, it is remarkable that the majority of them did not take up the concept as a first approach and incorporate it as one dimension of their schools’ conception. Therefore, it must be pointed out that the concept up to now has not achieved the desired effect. The target programmatically demanded in the resolution of Thessalonica (1997) that: ‘…each child within Europe must have the right to visit a health promoting school’, has not yet been successful (WHO 1997; Paulus, 2000). In the face of the existing health problems in schools we are just mentioning, (e.g. Bundeszentrale für gesundheitliche Aufklärung 1998; Currie, Hurrelmann, Settertobulte, Smith and Todd, 2000; European Commission 2000; Etschenberg, 2001), the achieved stage is far away from the required one. The lack of attention given to health promotion in current debates about educational policy and pedagogy Current debates in Germany of educational policy and pedagogy in reforming and improving schools are notably lacking in references to health promotion (e.g. Flitner 1996, Hentig 1993; Voß 1996). While these debates raise important questions of strategy in implementing efficient, modern, innovative and exemplary schools and are already providing a basis for concrete programmes of implementation, such initiatives are proceeding largely without reference to experiences gained in the development of health promoting schools (e.g. Eikenbusch 1998; Rolff, Buhren, Lindau-Bank and Müller 1999; Schratz, Iby and Radnitzky 2000). This unfortunate development cannot be explained by blaming superficial phenomena, such as an inadequately developed approach to advocating health promotion. The reasons are more profound. The main reason is that the approach of a health promoting school did not originate from the school sector itself in response to demands for educational improvement. Rather it was initiated by external health-focused interests, which sought alliances in the

New Developments in Germany

schools sector. The main thrust for the development came from concerns among health professionals to find ways to secure better population health. On the European level, the main driving forces were the World Health Organization (WHO), which runs the technical office of the European Network of Health Promoting Schools in Copenhagen and the European Commission, promoting the international network and projects through activity programs of the community in the sector of public health. The central targets were focused on health, referring to epidemiological knowledge of the health status of children and young people, and to the results and challenges of research for prevention and health promotion (e.g. International Union for Health Promotion and Education 1999). In this respect schools are considered to be institutions that are able to reach young people across all social strata. Social fringe groups that are mostly burdened with higher health risks may thus be appealed to without counter-productive stigmatization (Paulus 2002; additionally see the policy paper of the Central Association of health insurance companies of June 21, 2001).

Consequences: Health Promotion in Schools Revised from Top to Bottom – A New Paradigm In the face of insufficient developments in implementing the concept of health promoting schools, the time has come to propose a new approach. In the remainder of this chapter, such a new approach is outlined, which examines the problem of health promotion in schools from an educational perspective and proposes appropriate strategies for action on that basis. The starting point is no longer the question of how school can promote health or how schools can become healthier but rather, whether health promotion is able to contribute to the improvement of education quality in schools in order to enable schools to fulfil their primary tasks in the field of learning and teaching. While the previous approach expected schools to be responsible for health, the revised view presented here considers health as a factor which can offer ‘added value’ to schools, and help to make ‘good schools’ in a specifically educational sense. The key question is whether schools a pedagogical institutions, can strengthen their task in the field of learning and teaching through better health? This perspective motivated by pedagogical factors means that health is not considered an additional theme that schools have to deal with. Rather, it promises to be helpful for managing the main task of schools. If health promotion

63

64

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

in schools fulfils this promise, it will surely be respected in schools, since it contributes substantially to the central purposes of schooling. The good school Drawing on the work of several contemporary educationalists (s. z. B. Fend 1986; 1998; Aurin 1991; Meyer and Winkel 1991; Brockmeyer and Edelstein 1997; Schratz and Steiner-Löffler 1999; Stern 1999), good schools can be characterized by a range of indicators: • Positive life expectations and intellectual challenge with regard to schoolchildren and teaching staff • Transparent coherent system of regulations easy to calculate • Positive school climate involving schoolchildren • Schoolchildren assume participation and responsibility • Teachers combine cooperation and pedagogical assent • Low fluctuation of teachers and schoolchildren • School headship is orientated towards concrete targets, communication and assent • Extensive school life • Internal further training of teachers • Integration of parents • Support by School authority Table 2 shows a summary of the quality dimensions and criteria, based on the International Network of Innovative School Systems (2002). The dimensions are explained in brief as follows in order to give a first impression of this system (Stern, Mahlmann, Vaccaro and Wilbert 2002): Education and teaching task: This field copes with the results of teaching and learning processes and therefore represents the most important dimension of the evaluation of schoolwork. Attention is basically paid to the target that all quality efforts are concentrating on learning results and pedagogical effects of schools. It must be stressed that other competences have the same priority as learning results within special subjects. Learning and teaching: Learning and teaching is the core area of action of schools. It represents the core business in which schools are competent, since

New Developments in Germany

Table 2. Quality dimensions and criteria of good schools Quality dimensions and criteria of good schools (International Network of Innovative School Systems, 2002) (1) Education and teaching task

(2) Learning and teaching

(3) Supervision and management

(4) School climate and culture

(5) Satisfaction

Specific competences

Strategies of learning and teaching

Principles and ideas of development

School climate

To meet the requirements of school children (perception of schoolchildren)

Social competence

Balanced classes

Decision-making

Relations within school

To meet the requirements of school children (perception of parents)

Competence of teaching and methods

Marking of the schoolchildren’s work

Communication

Relations of schools to external partners

Satisfaction of teachers

Competence of self-control and creative ideas

Operative management

Promotion of positive behaviour

Practical competence

Motivation and support

Support system for school Children

To fulfil the expectations of those schools accepting new staff

Planning, Implementation and Evaluation

To meet the challenges of the professional world

Development of staff

education and teaching are the central targets of schools, which should primarily be reached within the classes. Supervision and management: Professional management behaviour results in a cooperative perception of the overall responsibility and therefore in satisfaction for all people concerned of school life. By delegating tasks according

65

66

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

to efficient plans, the self-effectiveness of employees and the identification with schools will be strengthened. School climate and school culture: The climate or culture of a school is one of the most important prevailing conditions for the core business of learning. A positive school climate offers the emotional and physical security school children are in need of, because school is not just a place for learning but a living place as well. Satisfaction: Apart from the task in the field of teaching and education this dimension also refers to the results of processes taking place in schools. It symbolizes a traffic light because it demonstrates disorders in other fields. This is why satisfaction runs diagonally to the other criteria and must always be reflected in reference to them.

Interim Balance. The Health Promoting School and the Good School As an interim conclusion of the previous explanations, Table 3 compares the activity fields of the health promoting school to the dimensions of the exemplary school, representing the innovative school. Comparing the fields of action of a health promoting school and the dimensions of a good school, a high degree of similarity appears. The settings approach of health promotion in schools and the exemplary schools are mainly working in the same fields. The main difference is that they are based on different perspectives and that they strive for different targets. The health promoting school brings health to school with the target to keep it healthier on all levels of the organization. It is concerned with targets of health promotion for young people, but is also concerned with the health of teachers and the organizational structures and daily routines of the school (e.g. breaks with exercises; healthy breakfast in schools; relevant health topics as a subject of discussion of practical life, disputes settlement machinery, management of stress and time for teachers, decrease of noise, health promoting attitude towards security risks, teamwork, supervision, design of classes and work places). As a long-distance target, the improvement of education quality of schools is loosely linked to it.

New Developments in Germany

Table 3. Action areas of the health promoting school and dimensions of the good school – a comparison

Dimensions of a health promoting and good school

Health promoting school

Good school

Teaching, learning, curriculum

Tasks in the field of teaching and educating

Learning and teaching School Health management in schools Supervision and management Services, cooperation partners

School culture, scholarly environment

School climate and school culture

Satisfaction

In comparison, the good school pursues targets in the field of education and teaching directly and explicitly within the demonstrated dimensions in order to achieve a quality improvement of its work. Both approaches have the same strategies of achieving their targets through the development of schools, whereas the health promoting school takes advantage of special variants, made for its individual requirements (Paulus 1995; Barkholz, Israel, Paulus and Posse 1998). Although obvious similarities have been stated, there is little cooperation between the approaches and their advocates. The different perspectives are obviously accompanied by different points of views on schools, which lead to a

67

68

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

separation of research approaches, and to institutions of research promotion on national and international levels operating independently of each other.

The Good and Healthy School In the approach of a good school, these two different developments must be harmonized. The good and healthy school is a school clearly committed to the quality dimensions of an exemplary school, which applies special health interventions in order to implement those tasks in the field of education and teaching that result from this commitment. The target is the long-lasting efficient increase of teaching and education quality in schools. It also illustrates the evaluation criteria taken into account. In this approach, a considerable orientation towards educational targets takes place. Health targets are intermediate targets. Two strategic starting points seem reasonable which I would like to describe as ‘Health qualification through education’ and ‘Educational qualification through health’. They are explained as follows. Health qualification through education: This means the overall health education defined in Germany in November 1992 in the Report of the Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs referring the situation of health education in Germany, which is still valid. Among methodological-didactical questions and questions concerning an integral conception, the report identifies topics a school has to deal with in terms of context: nutritional education, hygiene and dental hygiene, sex education and AIDS-prevention, prevention of addiction, first-aid topics as well as sports and exercise education. An interesting question must be the form of preparing these topics in order to achieve the quality the exemplary school is committed to. Do schools dispose of good material concerning these topics? Which fields and which school forms and graduates need to be developed further? Educational qualification through health: This means the sector in schools which deals with the improvement of educational work at schools through health intervention. It also refers to the teaching level of schools and does not only refer to health education. Basically the school as an organization strives to establish a health-management system. Public health insurances, (§ 20, Code of social law V) and of the Association of Local Accident Insurances (§ 14, Code of social law VII) play an important role for the implementation of prevention

New Developments in Germany

tasks. The labour protection law, which also provides a company medical service for educational institutions like schools, is of central importance as well. They are relevant for the health care of employees of schools, primarily for the health of teachers and the dangers and resources their job is subject to. In 2002, the Bertelsmann Foundation initiated a pilot test for schools following exactly this understanding of a good healthy school. It is called ‘Anschub.de’ (Paulus, Gröschell and Bockhorst 2002). The project was developed (a) against the setting of the currently critical health situation of schoolchildren, teachers and the school as an organization, (b) against the backdrop of the current situation of school health education and promotion within the different federal states (c) following the two pilot tests of the Bund-Länder Commission Network of health promoting schools (1993-1997) and OPUS (Open participative network and Health in schools – health promotion by net-based learning, 1997-2000), (d) against the setting of discussions of reforming the school system, getting a new dimension by publishing the PISA-results, and (e) following the last two World Conferences of the World Health Organization on Health Promotion in 1997 in Jakarta and in 2000 in Mexico. With this project, the Bertelsmann Foundation wants to stimulate innovative long-lasting impulses for the development from the health promoting school to the exemplary healthy school. The target of the first phase (January 1, 2002 – December 31, 2003) was to develop some evidence-based strategies (modules) together with cooperation partners, which are based on defined health problems of schoolchildren, teachers and the general organizational character of the school. These strategies are to enable schools to improve the quality of their educational work significantly. The joint development and implementation of the second phase of the pilot test (2004-2008) takes place in form of health promoting alliances with the cooperation partners at federal level with respect to different projects. By this means, projects on a regional and local level are to be provided with more specialized and sustainable resources. First results of the ongoing evaluation are expected in 2007.

Conclusion In future, each school must be a ‘good healthy school.’ Health in order to improve the educational work will be obligatory for schools in future. The evaluation of experiences, made in pilot tests on health promoting schools not

69

70

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

only in Germany, but in the European Network of Health Promoting Schools as well, which also involves Switzerland (Stewart Burgher, Barnekow Rasmussen and Rivett 1998; Barkholz, Gabriel, Jahn and Paulus 2001), justify these expectations. Health makes a difference that means an increase in quality. In Germany the project ‘Anschub.de’ will be able to give important impulses within the association of various national-working partner organizations in the context of a pilot test. The requested cooperation with the Federal Office of Public Health in Switzerland, which is to be followed by other international cooperation, will also strengthen the idea of an exemplary healthy school on the international level. The second conference of the European Network of Health Promoting Schools that took place in Egmond in the Netherlands in September 2002 has already blazed a trail indicating that the much-implored ‘Alliance of education and health’ (Stewart Burgher, Barnekow Rasmussen and Rivett 1998) will be newly defined in the international network. The concept of health promoting schools will then be reserved for schools, committed to the health topic as a specific mark in order to differ from other schools, e.g. schools they compete with on the educational market. They follow the tradition of the basic idea of Health Promoting Schools, propagated at the beginning of the 90th by the World Health Organization and which since then has been considered the most innovative form of health education in schools for a long time (Paulus 1995). But schools are confronted with new times and challenges and this is why health promotion in schools demand new developments. The good healthy school is a promising demanding approach for higher quality educational work than could probably be achieved with a school still based on the traditional approach of health promoting schools.

References Antonovsky, A. (1997). Salutogenese. Zur Entmystifizierung der Gesundheit. (Dt. erw. Herausgabe von A. Franke). Tübingen: dgvt-Verlag Aurin, K. (1991). Gute Schulen – Worauf beruht ihre Wirksamkeit (2. Aufl.). Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt Barkholz, U. and Homfeldt, H.-G. (1993). Gesundheitsförderung im schulischen Alltag. Weinheim: Juventa

New Developments in Germany

Barkholz, U. and Paulus, P. (1998). Gesundheitsfördernde Schulen. Konzept, Projektergebnisse, Möglichkeiten der Beteiligung. Gamburg: Verlag für Gesundheitsförderung Barkholz, U.; Gabriel, R. Jahn, H. and Paulus, P. (2001). Offenes Partizipationsnetz und Schulgesundheit. Gesundheitsförderung durch vernetztes Lernen. Norderstedt: Libri Bengel, J., Strittmatter, R. and Willmann, H. (2001). Was erhält Menschen gesund? Antonovskys Modell der Salutogenese – Diskussionsstand und Stellenwert (2. erw. Aufl.). Köln: Bundeszentrale für gesundheitliche Aufklärung Bertelsmann-Stiftung and Böckler-Stiftung (Hrsg.) (2000). Erfolgreich durch Gesundheitsmanagement. Gütersloh: Verlag Bertelsmann-Stiftung Brockmeyer, R. and Edelstein, W. (Hrsg.) (1997). Selbstwirksame Schulen. Wege pädagogischer Innovation. Oberhausen: Karl Maria Laufen Bundeszentrale für gesundheitliche Aufklärung (Hrsg.) (1998). Gesundheit von Kindern – Epidemiologische Grundlagen. Köln: Bundeszentrale für gesundheitliche Aufklärung Burow, F.; Asshauer, M. and Hanewinkel, R. (1998). Fit und stark fürs Leben. 1. und 2. Schuljahr. Stuttgart: Klett Burow, F.; Asshauer, M. and Hanewinkel, R. (1999). Fit und stark fürs Leben. 3. und 4. Schuljahr. Stuttgart: Klett Currie, C.; Hurrelmann, K.; Settertobulte, W.; Smith, R. and Todd, J. (Eds.) (2000). Health and health behaviour among young people. Health Behaviour in School-aged Children: a Cross-National Study (HBSC). International Report. Copenhagen: WHO Denman, S.; Moon, A.; Parsons, C. and Stears, D. (2001). The Health Promoting School. Policy, research and practice. London: Routledge Eikenbusch, G. (1998). Praxishandbuch Schulentwicklung. Berlin: Cornelsen Etschenberg, K. (2001). Chronische Erkrankungen als ein Problem und Thema in Schule und Unterricht. Köln: Bundeszentrale für gesundheitliche Aufklärung Europäische Kommission (2000). Bericht über die gesundheitliche Situation der jungen Menschen in der Europäischen Union. Arbeitspapier der Kommissionsstellen, DG 5, F3. Luxembourg: Europäische Kommission Fend, H. (1986). ‚”Gute Schulen – schlechte Schulen“. Die einzelne Schule als pädagogische Handlungseinheit.’ Die Deutsche Schule, 78, 275-293 Fend, H. (1998). Qualität im Bildungswesen. Schulforschung zu Systembedingungen, Schulprofilen und Lehrerleistung. Weinheim: Juventa

71

72

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

Fleischer-Bickmann, W. and Maritzen, N. (1996). ‚Schulprogramm. Anspruch und Wirklichkeit eines Instruments der Schulentwicklung.’ Pädagogik, 1, 1217 Flitner, A. (1996). Schule. In Krüger, H.- H. and Helsper, W. (Hrsg.), Einführung in Grundbegriffe und Grundfragen der Erziehungswissenschaft (S.167-176). Berlin: Springer. Freitag., M. (1998). Was ist eine gesunde Schule? Einflüsse des Schulklimas auf Schüler- und Lehrergesundheit. Weinheim: Juventa Haug, Ch. V. (1991). Gesundheitsbildung im Wandel. Die Tradition der europäischen Gesundheitsbildung und der “Health-Promotion“-Ansatz in den USA in ihrer Bedeutung für die gegenwärtige Gesundheitspädagogik. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt Hentig, H. v. (1993). Die Schule neu denken. Eine Übung in praktischer Vernunft (2. erw. Aufl.). München: Hanser Hollederer, A. and Bölcskei, P. L. (2000). ‚Gesundheitsförderung in die Lehrpläne.’ Prävention 23, S. 99-103 International Network of Innovative School Systems (Ed.) (2002). Quality Development of Schools based on International Quality Comparisons. Information material. Gütersloh: Verlag Bertelsmann-Stiftung International Union for Health Promotion and Education (1999) The evidence of health promotion effectiveness Part two. Evidence book. Brussels: ECSC Kultusministerkonferenz (1992). Zur Situation der Gesundheitserziehung in der Schule. Bericht der Kultusministerkonferenz vom 5.-6. November 1992. Bonn: Kultusministerkonferenz Marx, E., Wooley, S.F. and Northrop, D. (Eds.) (1998). Health is Academic. A guide to coordinated school health programs. New York: Teachers College Press Medusana Stiftung (Hrsg.) (2002). Das Praxisbuch I. Ein Handbuch für Lebendiges Gesundheitslernen im Projekt “Die Medipäds. Lehrer und Ärzte im Team“. Hohengehren: Schneider Meyer, E. and Winkel, R. (Hrsg.) (1991). Unser Ziel: Humane Schule. Entwicklung. Praxis. Perspektiven. Hohengehren: Schneider. Parsons, C.; Stears, D.; Thomas, C.; Thomas, L. and Holland, J. (1997). The Implementation of ENHPS in Different National Contexts. Canterbury: Canterbury Christ Church College Paulus, P. (1995). ‚Die Gesundheitsfördernde Schule. Der innovativste Ansatz gesundheitsbezogener Interventionen in Schulen.’ Die Deutsche Schule, 87, 262-281

73

Paulus, P. (1998). Gesundheitsförderung in der Schule. In Merkle, K. (Hrsg.). Umbau oder Abbau im Gesundheitswesen? Finanzierung, Versorgungsstrukturen, Selbstverwaltung (S. 510-521). Berlin: Quintessenz Verlag Paulus, P. (2000). Gesundheitsfördernde Schulen als Gegenpotential zum Leben? In Altgeld, Th. and Hofrichter, P. (Hrsg.). Reiches Land – kranke Kinder? (S. 235-259). Frankfurt: Mabuse-Verlag Paulus, P. (2002). Die gesundheitsfördernde Schule in Europa – eine Investition in Bildung, Gesundheit und Demokratie. In Hilligus, A.H.; Rinkens, H.-D. and Friedrich, C. (Hrsg.). Europa in Schule und Lehrerausbildung. Entwicklungen – Beispiele – Perspektiven (S.163-185). Münster: LIT-Verlag Paulus, P. (2003). Schulische Gesundheitsförderung – vom Kopf auf die Füße gestellt. Von der Gesundheitsfördernden Schule zur guten gesunden Schule. In K. Aregger and U. P. Lattmann (Hrsg.). Gesundheitsfördernde Schule – eine Utopie? Konzepte, Praxisbeispiele, Perspektiven (S. 92-116). Luzern: Sauerländer Paulus P. and Brückner, G. (Hrsg.) (2000). Auf dem Weg zu einer gesünderen Schule. Handlungsebenen, Handlungsfelder, Bewertungen. Tübingen: dgvt-Verlag Paulus, P.; Gröschell, M. and Bockhorst, R. (2002). ‚Anschub.de – Allianz für nachhaltige Schulgesundheit und Bildung.’ Prävention, 25(3), 75-77 Piette, D., Tudor-Smith, Ch., Rivett, D., Rasmussen, V. and Ziglio, E. (1995). Towards an Evaluation of the European Networtk of Health Promoting Schools. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities, WHO Regional Office for Europe, Council of Europe Rolff, H.-G.; Buhren, C.-G.; Lindau-Bank, D. and Müller, S. (1999). Manual Schulentwicklung. Handlungskonzept zur pädagogischen Schulentwicklungsberatung (SchuB). Weinheim: Beltz Rootman, I.; Goodstadt, M.; Hyndman, B.; McQueen, D.; Potvin, L.; Springett and Ziglio. E. (eds) Evaluation in Health Promotion: Principles and practice. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Publications, European Series No 92. Schneider, V. (1993). Gesundheitsförderung heute. Möglichkeiten Grenzen, Materialien für die Krankenpflege. Freiburg: Lambertus Schratz, M. and Steiner-Löffler, U. (1999). Die lernende Schule. Arbeitsbuch pädagogische Schulentwicklung (2. Aufl.). Weinheim: Beltz Schratz, M.; Iby, M. and Radnitzky, E. (2000). Qualitätsentwicklung. Verfahren, Methoden, Instrumente. Weinheim: Beltz Spitzenverbände der Krankenkassen (2000). Gemeinsame und einheitliche Handlungsfelder und Kriterien der Spitzenverbände der Krankenkassen zur Umsetzung von § 20 Abs. 1 und 2 SGB V vom 21. Juni 2000 (Manuskript)

74

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

St. Leger, L. (2000). ‘Developing indicators to enhance school health.’ Health Education Research, 15, 6, 719 – 728 Stern, C. (Hrsg.) (1999). Schule neu gestalten. “Netzwerk Innovativer Schulen in Deutschland” (Neuaufl). Gütersloh: Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung Stern, C.; Mahlmann, J.; Vaccaro, E. and Wilbert, K. (2002). Schulqualität: Dimensionen, Kriterien und Indikatoren. In International Network of Innovative School Systems (ed.). Quality Development of Schools based on International Quality Comparisons. Information material (1-7). Gütersloh: Verlag Bertelsmann-Stiftung Stewart-Brown, S. (2001). Evaluating health promotion in schools: reflections. In Rootman, I.; Goodstadt, M.; Hyndman, B.; McQueen, D.; Potvin, L.; Springett and Ziglio. E. (eds) Evaluation in Health Promotion: Principles and practice. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Publications, European Series No 92. Stewart Burgher, M., Barnekow-Rasmussen, V. and Rivett, D. (1999). The European Network of Health Promoting Schools. The alliance of education and health. Copenhagen: World Health Organization Tones, K. and Green, J. (2004). Health Promotion. Planning and strategies. London: Sage Voß, R. (Hrsg.) (1996). Die Schule neu erfinden. Systemisch-konstruktivistische Annäherungen an Schule und Pädagogik. Neuwied: Luchterhand Weare, K. (2000). Promoting Mental, Emotional and Social Health. A whole school approach. London: Routledge WHO (1997). Europäisches Netzwerk Gesundheitsfördernder Schulen. Kopenhagen: WHO WHO (Ed.) (1997). The Health Promoting School – An investment in education, health and democracy. Conference report. Copenhagen: WHO WHO (1992). Die Ottawa-Charta zur Gesundheitsförderung. In Paulus, P. (Hrsg.). Prävention und Gesundheitsförderung. Perspektiven für die Psychosoziale Praxis (S. 17-22). Köln: GwG-Verlag

75

4

Towards the Development of Indicators for Health Promoting Schools Charles T. Viljoen, Tiaan G.J. Kirsten, Bo Haglund and Per Tillgren

Introduction: The Need for Indicators A major theme in recent debates on the Health Promoting School (HPS) is the search for indicators (Pattenden, 1998; European Network for Health Promoting Schools, 1999; Stears, Holland and Parsons, 2000; Denman, Moon, Parsons and Stears, 2002). Through the development of indicators, it is argued, the ideal of the school as a health promoting setting could be achieved. There is a need to develop a set of indicators to know how best to implement health promotion programmes in educational systems and this should be done in consultation with all stakeholders (Konu and Rimpelä, 2002; Deschesnes, Martin and Hill, 2003). Indicators would also provide an instrument in assessing and monitoring the development of the health and well-being of all stakeholders in the educational endeavour. Indicators are used as markers of progress towards reaching objectives and targets. To be defined as a Health Promoting School, the school has to portray certain features, which will be judged by the requirements and the implications of the broader concept of health promotion. On the biophysical level indicators for a HPS would show, for example, that children are physically well and have good nutrition, that a school has a working relationship with local health services and that the School Nurse is a regular visitor to the school. On a psychosocial level, indicators for a HPS would show for example, that peer group support is in place and learners are socially supported and that families are involved in school activities. A characteristic of indicators is that they can measure visible things – like features, and invisible things, like characteristics.

76

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

As schools are complex phenomena, a set of indicators has to be developed to measure the distinct components of the system implied by the HPS concept. A set of indicators will also provide information about how the individual components work together to produce the overall effect. Shavelson et al. (1991) state that the purpose of an indicator is to characterize the nature of a system through its components – how they are related and how they change over time. The information can then be used to judge progress towards some goal or standard, against some benchmark, or by comparison with data from some other institution or country. Further uses of indicators are to serve strategic planning, policy development, management and decision-making. They can motivate people to action, indicate direction and speed of change, help in the identification of priorities, stimulate action, challenge assumptions about strategies and targets, and encourage policy-makers and managers to rethink appropriate strategies (WHO, 1981; Corvalan et al., 1997). In other literature concerning HPS, indicators are referred to or can be described in terms of checklists, or indices. The US Health Index for Physical Activity and Healthy Eating for example, was designed: …to help schools to identify strengths and weaknesses of their health promotion policies and programs, develop an action plan for improving student health and to involve teachers, parents, students, and the community to improve school services. (US Department of Health and Human Services, 2000:6). In summary, indicators can be seen as a set of characteristics and processes, which a school has to possess to be defined as health promoting. The needs of a school will define the focus of its programmes and will determine the types of indicators employed to monitor its functionality. A set of indicators can be qualitative, in the sense that they indicate which characteristics have to be possessed in order to be health promoting. Indicators can also be quantitative, in the sense that they measure the extent to which processes or activities contribute to the overall goal, which is health promotion.

Towards the Development of Indicators for Health Promoting Schools

The Meaning of Health and the Development of Indicators The way in which health is conceptualized will have an impact on how indicators are formulated. The ‘pathogenic’ perspective on health, for example, defines health as the ‘absence of disease’ and the processes entailed in meeting the objective of being healthy are focused on the treatment and prevention of disease. This approach stands in contrast to a ‘salutogenic’ perspective in which an effort is made to move beyond medical and disease models to construe health as states of wellness rather than the absence of illness. Because wellness and the promotion of wellness is not about an achieved state of being, for instance being symptom-free or problem-free, but rather a continuous and dynamic process, it is important to recognise that wellness and illness are end-points on a continuum (Edelman and Mandle, 1994; Kirsten, 1994; Kirsten and Viljoen, 2002). Wellness can be promoted regardless of the particular point on the wellnessillness continuum that a particular person might find themselves – in other words not only maintaining the health of those who are well, but also, or especially, promoting wellness amongst persons with distress, disability or illness. The promotion of wellness is also directed to more than the attainment of a neutral or symptom-less state, it should reach beyond mere management towards attaining the highest possible level of functioning in all aspects of life. Human wellness is about the mind and body and their interconnections, and positive human health is best construed as a multidimensional dynamic process rather than a discrete end state. That is, human wellness and positive health is ultimately an issue of engagement in living, involving expression of a broad range of human potentialities: intellectual, social, emotional, physical and spiritual. This ‘committed living’, according to Ryff and Singer (1998) is universally expressed in leading a life of purpose; in deep and meaningful connections to others, and in a sense of self-regard and mastery. A holistic view of health is also reflected in the model presented by Jordaan and Jordaan (1990; 1998), Kirsten (1994; 2001) and Kirsten and Viljoen (2003), which proposes five contexts of human existence. The biological, intra-psychic and spiritual contexts (and more specifically the processes involved) constitute a living person as a bio-psycho-spiritual being. This implies that the biological, intra-psychic and spiritual contexts are intra- and interdependent. The living person is placed within two outside contexts – the total living and non-living physical environment as well as the symbolic cultural environment. The five

77

78

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

contexts of human existence are in theory separable, but in practice inseparable. It would be impossible for a person to live without being a biopsycho-spiritual entity, and also impossible to take a person out of their physical and cultural environment. This systems perspective on health has a very important meaning for the development of health programs, as the whole school community forms part of the socio-ecological system. Noack (1987) states that coping with adverse environmental conditions is not limited to individual activity, but involves social action and interaction. The community approach is congruent with the socio-ecological model of health promotion. The conceptual model draws together a range of disparate elements to do with health and health promotion in a framework that can be used as part of a comprehensive and coordinated approach to planning and development (Denman, 1999). A realistic aim of health promotion would be to help people to interact with their environment so that they can reflect on and attempt to modify healthrelated values and practices; develop more adequate social skills, and strengthen emotional and social ties with other people. To improve health potential, health promotion may help people in analysing their lifestyle and the systems in which they live, and in changing their patterns of life in a health conscious way (Noack, 1987). One of the key tasks of a health promoting school is thus to ensure that young people become health literate and develop ‘action competence’ (Jensen, 1997). Practical experience shows that the biomedical and socio-ecological paradigms can be integrated in health promoting schools, in the sense that a focus on both prevention and health promotion can co-exist in a school. Numerous developing and developed countries take a disease or substance abuse as a point of departure for the introduction of health promoting programs. It will be the school’s view on education and the development of suitable content and method, which will ultimately qualify the health program as empowering or disempowering. The worst-case scenario would be that a school’s program can be exclusively biomedical, the school’s educational role negated and that the school serves as a health clinic where pamphlets and tablets are handed out. Another impeding factor could be a moralistic presentation (Jensen, 1997:419) of a healthy lifestyle, which can be sublimated by schools motivating teachers to adopt democratic strategies in health education.

Towards the Development of Indicators for Health Promoting Schools

These statements have an important implication for indicator development, as indicators that monitor the quality of programs are developed within a particular paradigm of health and education.

Towards the Development of Indicators for the Health Promoting School In the development of health promoting schools, a set of indicators has to be developed in every stage of program formulation, implementation and evaluation. The purpose of this section is to present a number of important issues that need to be taken into account in the development of indicators for health promoting schools, drawing on material from a variety of national contexts. Contextualisation While different countries may follow the same broad formulation of aims for health promotion, within specific localities the notion of the HPS requires contextualisation to address the specific needs that arise within specific communities (Deschesnes et al., 2003). Two examples from China and Papua New Guinea (see Table 1) illustrate this point very clearly. Table 1 shows that although the programmes took physical needs as the point of departure, other dimensions of wellness were integrated in the process. These examples serve to illustrate the dynamic and integrative nature of ‘wellbeing’. In the Chinese example, helminth infection was taken as the entry point to foster health promotion in schools. This did not limit the program to a disease oriented understanding of health promotion, however, as the strategy undertaken involved family members and a key element in the program was that mutual respect was fostered between parents, teachers and children. A national audit of health promoting schools in Australia has shown that individual school factors are more significant than state and regional factors in shaping the health promoting school opportunities for students (Northfield et al., 1997). The audit also showed that while the physical environment of schools was regarded as important, greater emphasis was placed on the fostering of social relations to promote the psychosocial dimension of wellness. The most commonly valued programs and structures were those which served to improve relationships between students within schools through

79

80

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

Table 1. Health Promoting School initiatives in China and Papua New Guinea Dimensions of wellness

China (Long-Shan et al., 2000)

Papua New Guinea (Tetaga, 1993)

Physical

Focuses on the reducing of helminth infections.

Building of new, practical classroom instead of the use of old traditional hut with circular frame and made of bush grass improved ventilation and improved the learning environment.

Contamination was lowered and the physical environment improved by building of latrines. Health services for school and personnel were established. Psychological, social, spiritual and emotional

The relationship between the school and the community was improved, because families were involved in the projects

A positive Influence on the morale of teachers and children to be in new classroom came about. There was a communal consent as to the aims of the HPS.

Intellectual

An identification and prioritisation of problems were done. Health related policies were established.

A comprehension of the aims by the community brought them to a cooperation to accept the new type of building structure and they raised money to build it. Proper training of staff led to further empowerment and promotion of the HPS principle (one teacher was able to launch a HPS in another region, because of her experience). The involvement of the whole community in problem identification and the launching of action to address problems which was marked by a cognitive process integrate other dimensions of wellbeing.

developing friendships and a feeling of belonging or connectedness via peer education, buddy systems, cross age tutoring home groups and mentor schemes. Similarly valued were pastoral structures, which enabled students to develop close relationships with certain teachers over their school years. (Northfield et al., 1997) In the Macedonian context, the focus of health promoting schools is on factors that influence behaviour, rather than on behaviour itself. The factors named are – young people’s knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, perceptions, values,

Towards the Development of Indicators for Health Promoting Schools

skills, self-confidence and self-esteem, as well as the physical and psychosocial environment. The aims are to develop the individual’s responsibility toward her/his own health by promoting healthy lifestyles, as well as on developing environmental care and the care for the community (WHO, 1988). Active learning principles (called the IVAC – information – action – change approach) are recommended by the Macedonians and serve as a valuable method to change behaviour. In Australia too, students favoured active learning and the opportunity to influence what would be covered in health classes. In a number of schools, groups of students were active in promoting special health events and they saw strong links between health classes and the opportunity to become health promoting within the school and its community (Northfield et al., 1997:25) Training, partnerships and community involvement It is necessary that resources within the community have to be identified and empowered to meet the needs, which have been identified. The training of all stakeholders, like teachers and family members will make the program sustainable. Teachers are more confident in teaching health content and knowledge than they are helping students to develop health-related skills. This has implications for curriculum design, resource development and teacher professional development (Northfield et al., 1997). Teachers do not necessarily accept the notion of the health promoting school and they can easily regard implementation as an extra task and an aggravation of their burden. However, the claimed link between health and learning is an important element that helps to market the health promoting school concept. Ownership by participants is essential if progress in health promoting school initiatives is to be made, and the importance of teacher attitudes should not be under estimated (Northfield et al., 1997). The specific tasks of schools and of local initiatives will be eased when national and international systems are in place. The Quality Initiative in Scottish Schools for example, sets its goal to foster collaboration and partnership between health inspectors, education authorities and schools. This has resulted in the development of a coherent and shared national approach. The approach is to place schools at the centre of the drive to improve standards and quality and to meet realistic and challenging targets (Scottish Executive, 1999). Linking diverse stakeholders from a range of sectors including public and private agencies and organizations is increasingly being recognised as a feature

81

82

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

of best practice in contemporary health promotion. Health promoting schools represent a complex array of issues, and bring together the major sectors of health and education and other related support groups. Community approaches in health promotion aimed at young people have been shown to hold the greatest potential for success in changing health behaviour. The concept of the health promoting school is an all-embracing approach, which utilises all the opportunities that a school presents in enhancing the health and well-being of children and adults in the community of the school. The community approach is congruent with the socio-ecological model of health promotion. The conceptual model draws together a range of disparate elements to do with health and health education in a framework, which can be used as part of a comprehensive and co-ordinated approach to planning, and development (Denman, 1999:217). Involvement of parents and family members has been reported to be effective in changing behaviour in rural China (Long-Shan et al., 2000). The Macedonian Network of health promoting schools, in following the European model for health promoting schools, accentuates the stimulation of individual and communal problem solving to take responsibility for change, which they set as the objective of education. They identify the democratisation of learners, and by implication the community, as the ultimate objective. In the evaluation process the demand for empowerment still directs the process.

Conclusion At the outset of this chapter it was stated that the aim was to outline contours for indicator development for Health Promoting Schools (HPS). Throughout the world, the school is seen as a significant setting for delivering key health messages to young people and for directly influencing their health related behaviour. The nature of the school as an educational setting combines health with educational opportunities and it is the synergy of the school as a place of learning and health enhancement, which has to be employed to its optimal capacity. To be viewed as health promoting, a school has to portray certain features, which will be judged by the requirements and the implications of the broader concept of health promotion. Some of these features include:

Towards the Development of Indicators for Health Promoting Schools

• The acceptance of a holistic model of human health and the health promoting school paradigm as a framework on local, regional, national and global levels. • The recognition that health promoting schools can promote the health of its members, wherever it is starting from on the wellness-illness continuum. • The recognition that specific contextualised local needs will determine the selection of policies, priorities, programmes, content, strategies, methods, procedures, etc. within specific school contexts. • The use of the contextualised model as a guide to the selection of relevant indicators against which the policies, programmes, curriculum content, structures, outcomes, processes and partnerships, of a school can be monitored and evaluated.

References Corvalan, C. and Kjellstrom, T. (1997) ‘Health and environment analysis for decision-making’, In Briggs, D, Corvalan, C and Nurminen, M. (Eds.) Linkage Methods for Environment and Health Analysis: General Guidelines, A report of the Health and Environment Analysis for Decision Making Project (HEADLAMP). Corvalan, C., Briggs, D. and Kjellstrom, T. (1997) ‘Development of environmental health indicators’, In Briggs, D., Corvalan, C. and Nurminen, M. (Eds.) Linkage Methods for Environment and Health Analysis: General Guidelines, A report of the Health and Environment Analysis for Decision Making Project (HEADLAMP). Denman, S. (1999) ‘Health promoting schools in England – a way forward in development’, Journal of Public Health Medicine, 2, 2, 215-220. Denman, S., Moon, A., Parsons, C. and Stears, D. F. (2002) The Health Promoting School: Policy, Research and Practice, London, Routledge/Falmer. Deschesnes, M., Martin, C. and Hill, A. J. (2003) ‘Comprehensive approaches to school health promotion: how to achieve broader implementation?’ Health Promotion International, 18, 4, 387-396. Edelman, C. L. and Mandle, C. L. (1994) (Eds), Health Promotion Throughout the Lifespan, St. Louis: Mosby. Jensen, B.B. (1997) ‘A case of two paradigms within health education’, Health Education Research, 12, 4, 419-428.

83

84

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

Jordaan, W. and Jordaan, J. (1998)(3rd Ed.) People in Context, Johannesburg: Heinemann. Kirsten, G.J.C. (1994) The Promotion of Mental Health as an Educational Psychological Issue (Die bevordering van geestesgesondheid as opvoedkundige sielkundige opgawe), Pretoria: Universiteit van Pretoria. (Verhandeling – M.Ed.). Kirsten, G.J.C. (2001) The Use of Meditation as a Strategy for Stress Management and the Promotion of Wellness in Teachers: An Educational Psychological Study, Potchefstroom: Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. Kirsten, G.J.C. and Viljoen, C.T. (2002) Re-visiting the meaning of the concept ‘health’: Expanding our horizons with wellness. Unpublished manuscript, Faculty of Educational Sciences, North West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa. Konu, A. and Rimpelä, M. (2002) ‘Well-being in schools: a conceptual model’, Health Promotion International, 17, 1, 79-87. Long-Shan, X., Bao-Jun, P., Jin-Xiang, L., Li-Ping, C., Sen-Hai, Y. and Jones, J. (2000) ‘Creating health-promoting schools in rural China: a project started from deworming’, Health Promotion International, 15, 3,197-206. Noack, H. (1987) ‘Concepts of health and health promotion’, In Abelin, T., Brzezinski, Z. J., and Carstairs, V. D. L. (Eds.) Measurement in Health Promotion and Protection, Regional Office for Europe, WHO Regional Publications. European Series No. 22 (pp.1-28), Copenhagen: WHO. Northfield, J., St Leger, L., Marshall, B., Sheehan, M. Maher, S., and Carlisle, R. (1997) School Based Health Promotion across Australia. Sydney: Australian Health Promoting Schools Association. Pattenden, J. (1998) ‘Indicators for the health promoting school’, In First Workshop on Practice of Evaluation of the Health Promoting School – Models, Experience and Perspectives. Copenhagen: World Health Organisation. (pp. 39-41). Ryff, C. D. Singer, B. (1998) ‘The contours of positive human health’, Psychological Inquiry, 9, 1-28. Shavelson, R. (1991) What are Educational Indicators and Indicator Systems? ERIC/TM Digest. Available at: http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=2&n=11 Accessed 4 May 2005. Scottish Executive (1999) A route to health promotion: Self-evaluation using performance indicators. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library2/doc08/rthp-00.htm Accessed 4 May 2005

Towards the Development of Indicators for Health Promoting Schools

Stears, D., Holland, J. and Parsons, C. (2000) Healthy Schools Assessment Tool: An Instrument for Monitoring and Recording Health Promotion Assets in Schools. Cardiff: The National Assembly of Wales. Tetaga, J. (1997) ‘Challenges to implementing health promoting schools: the Papua New Guinea experience’, Promotion and Education, 4, 11-13. US Department of Health and Human Services (2000) School Health Index for Physical Activity and Healthy Eating: A Self-Assessment and Planning Guide. Middle School / High School. WHO (1981) Development of Indicators for Monitoring Progress Towards Health for All by the Year 2000, Health for All Series, No. 4. Geneva: World Health Organization. WHO (1998) First Workshop on Practice of Evaluation. Burn/Thun 19-22 November, 1998. Available at: http://www.euro.who.int/document/e75005.pdf Accessed 5 May 2005.

85

87

5

The Tailored Schoolbeat-Approach: New Concepts for Health Promotion in Schools Mariken T.W. Leurs, Maria W.J. Jansen, Herman P. Schaalma, Ingrid M. Mur-Veeman and Nanne K. De Vries

Introduction The first developments in school health promotion in many European and English-speaking countries date from early 20th century. Developments in the area of school-wide health promotion are now widespread, especially in the English-speaking countries (e.g. Kolbe, 1986; Rogers et al., 1998; Marshall et al., 2000; Goffin, 2004). However, the inclusion of comprehensive health promotion in school policies remains a challenge as education and not health is the core business of schools (St.Leger and Nutbeam, 2000). As a member of the European Network for Health Promoting Schools since the mid 1990s, the Netherlands developed a national action plan on school health promotion over a number of years. This plan focuses on the three ‘historical’ domains: classroom health instruction, school health services and a healthy school environment (Buijs et al., 2002). Results so far are limited: school health promotion and preventive youth care in the Netherlands are fragmented, supply-driven, primarily focused on individual pupil care and address the specific needs of a school and its population rarely directly (Veen et al., 1998; Pijpers, 1999; Paulussen, 2002). As is the case in other countries, few health promoting school (HPS) interventions have been evaluated and even fewer have proven to be effective (Schaalma et al., 1996; Cuijpers et al., 2002; Lier et al., 2002). This is changing with recent increases in the number and breath of evidence-based school-based prevention programs and effectiveness research becoming a central focus of research activity in this area (Greenberg, 2004). Hence, it came as no surprise that the effectiveness of specific HPSinterventions was marked as the number 1 priority of the international HPS-

88

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

research agenda at the 18th World Conference on Health Promotion and Health Education in Melbourne in 2004 (Leurs, 2004). Recently, a bottom-up approach for school health promotion was initiated in the Netherlands. This article describes this bottom-up approach, dubbed ‘schoolBeat’ [‘schoolSlag’ in Dutch]. The approach has a strong focus on the establishment and monitoring of sustainable intersectoral collaborative support for comprehensive school health promotion. This is one of the keystrategies advocated recently by Deschesnes and colleagues (2003) to enhance broad implementation of comprehensive approaches to school health. Additionally, schoolBeat aims to develop and introduce a specific tailored approach to comprehensive school health promotion, involving – in first instance – school staff, pupils and parents. The coalition-partners take responsibility for disseminating congruent messages into the surrounding community. Hence, a multifaceted approach to multiple determinants will be created. As this is a complex HPS initiative, its evaluation will be challenging (Stewart-Brown, 2001). This article includes a description of a new model for evaluating the collaborative aspects of our approach – the DISC-model – as part of this evaluation process.

The Schoolbeat Approach The development of schoolBeat commenced in 2001 when five regional healthpromoting agencies joined forces in the south of the Netherlands. The five keyplayers came from the areas of addiction, mental health, public health, youth care and social welfare. With the recruitment of a project manager and researcher, financed by a national four-year grant, the project advanced in Spring 2002. In ten years, schoolBeat aims to reduce risk behaviours among youth (4-19 years) in the Maastricht region. The projects midterm objectives (2005) focus on establishing sustainable collaboration among schools, health promoting agencies and local authorities. The number and quality of tailored health promotion activities should also be increased in this period. In order to pursue these objectives a systematic plan of coordinated support for tailored school health promotion policy was developed. The plan is based on the principles of intervention mapping (Bartholomew et al., 2001) and tailored to the possibilities and pitfalls of the educational system and the health system in The Netherlands.

The Tailored Schoolbeat-Approach: New Concepts for Health Promotion in Schools

Forms of action research were used in combination with literature reviews and expert consultations (Peters, 2001; Leurs et al., 2002; Peters and Keijsers, 2002). However, programs cannot be developed based on expertise and authority alone. It requires full participation of all stakeholders (Wallerstein, 1992). Hence, the development of schoolBeat includes participation of stakeholders from the health, welfare and education sectors. This is a common type of collaboration in school health promotion (e.g. St.Leger and Nutbeam, 2000; Jones et al., 2002; Lee et al., 2003; Goffin, 2004). As part of the process, new concepts were introduced in the area of (1) participation of the entire school population in HPS, (2) quality assessment of HPS- interventions, (3) workload sharing among regional support organizations, (4) linking school health promotion to individual pupil care and (5) diagnoses of the development of sustainable collaboration using the newly developed DISCmodel (Buijs et al., 2004; Leurs et al., 2003; Leurs et al, 2005; Peters et al., 2004). An in-depth description of each specific innovation is beyond the scope of this general introductory article. SchoolBeat-study I, accompanying the development-phase of schoolBeat, spans the first four years of development, preliminary implementation and adjustments of the approach, primarily using action research. Before describing the steps of the schoolBeat approach, including the introduction of new concepts where appropriate, the main planning-principles of ‘Intervention Mapping’ will be outlined. These principles are widely applicable to health promoting school developments. Intervention Mapping Principles A sound Intervention Mapping process provides program planners “with a framework for effective decision making at each step in intervention planning, implementation and evaluation” (Bartholomew et al., 2001), with interventions being defined as a “planned combination of theoretical methods delivered through a series of strategies organized into a program”. The specific focus of Intervention Mapping is the evidence- and theory-based development of health education and promotion using a socio-ecological approach to health. This is in line with the holistic approaches to school health promotion, popular since the mid-eighties (Allensworth and Kolbe, 1987; St.Leger, 1999). Basically, both paradigms focus on the wide picture of interrelationships among individuals with their personal characteristics and their environments. Intervention Mapping identifies the most effective points and accompanying strategies for

89

90

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

interventions in this complex picture and eliminates the use of an ineffective trial-and-error approach. It is a comprehensive and pragmatic step-by-step approach to the development, implementation and evaluation of health education and promotion interventions. A form of needs assessment precedes the Intervention Mapping steps. Intervention Mapping starts with (1) a specification of evidence-based program objectives regarding behaviour and environmental conditions. This is followed by (2) the selection of intervention methods and strategies with a sound theoretical base and (3) program design, pretest and production. Additionally, (4) adoption and implementation plans are developed integrally with a focus on sustainability. This all should be supported by (5) an evaluation plan (Bartholomew et al., 2001). This evaluation is not only meant to judge the planned intervention on effectiveness, but also to facilitate understanding of all stakeholders (Judd et al., 2001). Overall, Intervention Mapping is an iterative process. New insights gained along the way, will adjust choices made in previous or future steps resulting in an adjusted, more effective program. As a planning model, Intervention Mapping builds strongly on previous models by Green and colleagues (Green and Lewis, 1986; Green and Kreuter, 1999). To engage successfully in Intervention Mapping, insights are required into the needs and capacities of the intended target group (individuals and communities) and into the current state-of-play in health education and promotion evidence and theories (Bartholomew et al., 2001). As far as school health promotion is concerned, it is important to take into account differing objectives of the health promotion agencies (i.e. health) and schools (i.e. education) prior to engaging in any intervention mapping process regarding HPS-interventions (St.Leger and Nutbeam, 1999). Or, as stated by Green and Kreuter (1999, p392): Experiences around the world have taught planners this lesson: failure to acknowledge and address the perceptions and feelings held by administrators, teachers and parents, however difficult those sentiments may be to quantify, can stop the best-designed, well-intended program dead in its tracks. Therefore, it is important to be aware of the existing evidence regarding the potential positive impact of school health promotion on school curricula and knowledge of pupils (e.g. Lister-Sharp et al., 1999; St.Leger and Nutbeam, 1999).

The Tailored Schoolbeat-Approach: New Concepts for Health Promotion in Schools

The schoolBeat approach is based on the Intervention Mapping steps described. This will be illustrated by outlining the approach using the IM steps described in the next section. The schoolBeat-steps towards a Healthy School The systematic schoolBeat approach includes coordinated support of schools during – what is defined from the perspective of schools – the ‘schoolBeat-steps towards a Healthy School’. This support takes in the form of account managers (mostly health promotion professionals) with advisory tasks on behalf of the collaboration. They are called ‘schoolBeat-advisors’. This concept implies workload sharing among the collaboration partners in attracting and supporting schools. It requires regular consultation between the schoolBeat-advisors as well as educating the advisors regarding the schoolBeat-approach and the fields of expertise of the different collaborating partners. This is done to pro-actively deal with possible difficulties due to a lack of understanding among the partners of how sectors work and function as suggested by the findings of school health promotion programs with a major partnership component (St.Leger and Nutbeam, 1999). The first two steps in the schoolBeat-approach are the prerequisites for the application of intervention mapping principles from step 3 onwards. Hence, the ‘schoolBeat-steps towards a Healthy School’ come down to a specification of the intervention mapping principles to the school setting, extended with two ‘preparation’ steps. Regarding schoolBeat, it should be noted that the ‘schoolBeat-steps towards a Healthy School’ focus on the school-based process, without taking full account of the back-office structure and activities of the collaborating partners supporting this process. The schoolBeat-steps can be described as follows: 1) Determining the health needs of the school The health needs of a school cannot be based on available epidemiological data regarding the health status of students alone (Rissel and Bracht, 1999; Bartholomew et al., 2001). In the Netherlands, and possibly elsewhere as well, there is a tendency among regional public health institutes to do just this, as this data is relatively easy available. However, it is important to also include data on the educational performances of students, registration of absence due to illness among students and staff sick leave, issues coming up in staff and parent meetings regarding school health policies and information on the

91

92

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

current status of the school’s organization, housing and activities with a possible impact on school health (Nutbeam et al., 1989). A schoolBeat advisor is available to assist schools in clarifying and interpreting these types of information. It is preferable that at least one partner-organization has the capability, expertise and personnel to compile school health profiles for each school within the HPS-scheme. It is important to stress that this information is compiled with the school instead of for the school, as the most important source and data interpreter needs to be the school itself. It was found to be extremely important that the major stakeholders in a school recognize themselves in the data provided and that they be able to complete the picture with internal data sources and interpretations. By the major stakeholders we mean school administrators, prevention and care coordinators, teaching staff, students (especially in secondary schools) and parents. Involvement in this needs assessment process, which continues in the next step, by stakeholders is likely to increase awareness, create “ownership” of the program and build commitment (Rissel and Bracht, 1999). In many of our schools this step included the installation of a school health promotion team with representatives of the major target groups in schools. This could be a new team or an extension of an existing school team, for example a working group on the prevention of substance abuse in school. This schoolbased health promotion team (some schools refer to this team as the ‘schoolBeat-team’) is related to the school care team in order to maximize opportunities regarding an integrated approach to school health, based on an extended comprehensive view on shared care (Leurs et al., 2003a). It links health promotion to other school-based interventions. According to St.Leger and Nutbeam (2000) and Greenberg (2004), this link is one of the priorities in school health promotion that needs to be pursued in the coming decade. 2) Setting health promotion priorities Based on the information described in step one, a school can determine its school-health priorities, including health promotion. Schools are advised to limit their priorities to around six or eight items and to have them recognized by the school board. As described in step one, participation of students, staff (educational as well as support staff) and parents can be achieved by organizing a school health team. In practice, this means a school care team and a school health promotion team as two separate but linked entities. As the introduction of specific teams

The Tailored Schoolbeat-Approach: New Concepts for Health Promotion in Schools

limits the level of active participation to a restricted number of stakeholders, other participation strategies for the selection of health promotion priorities are welcome. While working with schools, the knowledge of school-based stakeholders regarding the activities their own school undertakes in the area of health promotion and the information upon which choices are based were found to be limited. This was supported by previous findings of Marshall and colleagues (2000). Hence, we were not surprised at the limited support for school health promotion. To raise support for school health promotion and increase general knowledge on the possible choices and current actions in school health promotion, a healthy school priority-workshop was adopted. Originally, this workshop was developed for staff and parents of primary schools (Boerma and Hegger, 2001). To be applicable to students, parents and staff in secondary education the workshop needed adjustments. Based on expert consultation, explorative research among the three target groups (i.e. students, staff and parents) and pilots in different settings (i.e. classroom setting, parent evenings, mixed meetings of staff and parents and mixed meetings of students, staff and parents) an adjusted workshop was developed specifically for secondary education schools (Buijs et al., 2004). This adjusted workshop differentiates the priorities based on the components of the Comprehensive School Health Program (Kolbe, 1986; Marx and Wooley, 1998). After conducting the schoolBeatworkshop, stakeholders reported an increase in internal support for school health-promotion activities and an increase in knowledge regarding school health promotion among workshop participants. They perceived the results of the workshop as being relevant for tailoring school health promotion to the demands of their own school population. Joint actions have not yet been reported. However, one should take into account that these findings are preliminary and might be biased, as they are not based on rigorous research. 3) Assessing the important and changeable determinants Even though the Intervention Mapping protocol includes the setting of health promotion priorities and the selection of important and changeable determinants in step one (Bartholomew et al., 2001), we separated these two aspects in distinct steps. This is done to emphasize the importance of a clear analysis of the situation instead of implementing projects that seem to address the health promotion priorities set too quickly, without further analysing whether these projects focus on the most important and changeable determinants of the

93

94

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

priorities set. This step is very much a task for the experts of the support organizations in their role as school health advisors. For example, when a school sets a priority regarding the promotion of safe sex among students, the advisor looks for the different determinants of safe sex among adolescents. This may be knowledge regarding the risks of acquiring sexually transmitted diseases or getting pregnant. Other determinants are skills of students to acquire condoms and the availability of condoms in ‘safe’ places for students like school toilets. Based on this analysis, the advisor will look at the importance of the different determinants with regards to expected effects on the set prority. Additionally, the level of changebility of this determinant will be assessed in order to provide schools with realistic advice. 4) Compiling the school health plan The fourth schoolBeat-step corresponds with step two in Intervention Mapping: ‘selecting theory-based intervention methods and practical strategies’ and compiling them into a whole-school plan. Evidence-based interventions are rare, so the choice for ‘theory based’ is a logical one. However, little has yet been reported on the theoretical basis of most school health interventions. In this respect, the Dutch situation seems common worldwide. This led to the development an instrument for assessing the quality of school health promotion interventions (Peters et al., 2004). It is assumed that the use of a specific quality check based on quality criteria from the health promotion and education domains would improve overall quality of a comprehensive school health promotion plan in terms of the effectiveness and adaptability within the school of selected prevention programs. The schoolBeat quality-instrument is based on consultations of experts from both fields (health and education) and a review of other possibly relevant quality indicators (e.g. Vandenbroucke et al., 1995; Ader et al., 2001; Cameron et al., 2001; Molleman et al., 2003). Table 1 presents the nine criteria on the checklist. Each criterion is operationalised by a set of items, differing between two and ten items per criteria. Scoring is done per item on a three-point scale. In order to structure the program and activity choices, the American Coordinated School Health Program (Marx and Wooley, 1998) was adapted to the Dutch situation. Proposals for changes were based on the health and education structure and priorities in the Netherlands and sanctioned by the managers of the collaborating schoolBeat partner-organizations. This process

The Tailored Schoolbeat-Approach: New Concepts for Health Promotion in Schools

Table 1. Criteria of the SchoolBeat quality-checklist 1.0

1. Effectiveness proven 2. Well planned 3. Efficiency for support organization 4. Efficiency for school 5. Meeting educational needs 6. Participation 7. Environmental awareness 8. Quality of support 9. Ethical principles

yielded a slightly adjusted ‘Healthy School Model’ (Leurs, 2003), as illustrated in Figure 1. To assist schools, we use a matrix with the different target groups (i.e. students/classes, teachers, parents) on one axis and the selected health priorities on the other. Filling in the different cells, it became clear that secondary schools focus mainly on interventions targeting healthy student behaviour in the first three curriculum years. This was an eye-opener for schools, because they did not yet have a clear view of their overall input in school health. It became a challenge for the schools to fill in the cells for the other target groups. Schools decide themselves what to do. It appears that they have several relatively simple and often sound ideas on how to achieve progress in some of the areas. Support organizations come in with additional advice on effective approaches and solutions that suit the implementation possibilities of schools. 5) Realizing the school health plan As with the other steps, the adoption, implementation and sustainability of the school health plan is the responsibility of the school itself. Health promoters may play a supportive role, where necessary and desired by the school. Schools have a long tradition in developing annual and long-term school plans. A school health plan should be very much an extension of this school plan. Where

95

96

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

Figure 1. The schoolBeat-interpretation of the Healthy School Model (adapted from Marx and Wooley, 1998)

possible, it should be included in the school plan as an integral part of school policy. Thus, linking school health promotion once again with other schoolbased activities as stressed by St.Leger and Nutbeam (2000). This step contains a lot of useful information that health promotion agencies – regional and national – may be able to learn from schools. Their support ought to be adjusted accordingly. This may strengthen the expertise and skills already present in schools and fill existing ‘gaps’ that appear. This fifth schoolBeat-step coincides with the fourth Intervention Mapping planning phase (planning program adoption, implementation and sustainability). Special attention needs to be paid to the commitment of all stakeholders in the realization of the plan, not only in the planning phase but also in the implementation phase. Those involved in the planning phase must be informed about progress and possible outcomes. If possible, they should be able to experience certain aspects of the entire school health-promotion plan themselves.

The Tailored Schoolbeat-Approach: New Concepts for Health Promotion in Schools

6) School-based evaluation Evaluation is an element of the schoolBeat-methodology which needs to be considered right from the very start as evaluation not only deals with the effects on health and behaviour, but also with the process of school health promotion. Specifically, in the first years of introducing and implementing a systematic tailored whole-school approach, it is the process evaluation, which needs attention. When taking an action-research approach, the newly gained insights may be used directly to adjust processes, where needed. Anchors for effect evaluation in later years should not be forgotten. Attitudes, knowledge and satisfaction regarding the new approach, especially of school staff and administration, are important indicators to take into account. They are the main gateway to the wider school population: students, other teaching and support staff and parents. To limit the research burden on schools we ensured that instruments used for needs assessment purposes can be used for evaluation purposes as well. Support organizations with tasks in the area of epidemiology can assist schools in this area as well. The two latter schoolBeat-steps have not yet been described in detail as we do not yet have the necessary field-experience with the implementation of these steps. In future publications this omission will be rectified.

Evaluation The evaluation of the schoolBeat-approach – the schoolBeat-collaboration and its account mangers and the school-based schoolBeat-steps – focuses on the extent to which coordinated and tailored school health promotion is realized in the Netherlands in 2010 and the results it yields in terms of the levels of healthy behaviour and healthy schools. This includes research into the collaborative aspects of this comprehensive working procedure, which has much in common with the apparent increasing worldwide interest in productive partnerships (e.g. Prat et al., 1998; Walker, 2000; Peters, 2001; Greenberg, 2004). In order to monitor and evaluate the collaboration process and to be able to adjust procedures where required, we have developed a model for ‘DIagnosis of Sustainable Collaboration’ (DISC) (Leurs et al., 2003b). By doing so, we went beyond the more traditional evaluation models used in health promotion focussing primarily on the implementation and effects of single intervention

97

98

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

programs. The DISC-model is based on the WIZ-model used for coordination and integration of health services and reviews into networking, collaboration and implementation in the area of health promotion (Mur-Veeman and Raak, 1994; Raak et al., 2003; Peters, 2001; Ravensbergen et al., 2003; Ruland et al., 2003). The DISC-model focuses on the interaction between the project management and the perceptions, intentions and actions of the collaborating partners together (the project-support group), the project organization and factors in the wider context. The DISC-model links the collaborative approach directly to the real-life context in which the approach develops, making it appropriate for case study designs (Yin, 1994).

Figure 2. Diagnosis of Sustainable Collaboration (DISC) model

The Tailored Schoolbeat-Approach: New Concepts for Health Promotion in Schools

Process evaluation of the schoolBeat-approach using the DISC-model is done by means of a survey among stakeholders from the collaborating partners (schools, municipalities and health promotion organizations) followed by indepth interviews. The survey was piloted in a nearby region using the regional youth prevention network as a test case. Preliminary results indicate that especially municipalities and schools perceive schoolBeat as a new intervention, not differentiating it from interventions like substance-abuse prevention programs for schools and bullying preventions plans. They do not seem to perceive schoolBeat as an advanced working procedure aimed at improving the match between interventions and the needs of a school. Additionally, local authorities fear the costs of schoolBeat following the development phase, which is financed by a national grant, as the coordinating costs are no longer covered. However, right from the outset of the schoolBeatdevelopment municipalities have made clear that the working method to be developed should not add costs to current investments in health promotion. Although, the collaborating partners have developed the project with this in mind, municipalities do not seem convinced. The outcomes call for additional and more focussed communication. Within the schoolBeat project-management structure, this will be a challenge for the schoolBeat communication group to address. At the national policy level in the Netherlands there is a focus on investing in young people in order to reduce inequalities in health and to increase safety levels in society. It is a challenge for all health promotion professionals to profit from this – in DISC terms – ‘external factor’ on behalf of the health promoting schools The DISC-model only serves as a diagnosis-tool. Actions to be taken to improve the diagnosed situation have to be decided on collaboratively. For example, “the Partnership Analysis Tool: for partners in health promotion” (McLeod, 2003) may be used to support the decision process when progress is needed at the level of the initial health promotion partners. In this initial phase, it should be decided on within the project management structure. This evaluation and adaptation process ought to involve the key-stakeholders in meaningful ways. This fits the contemporary community-evaluation principles as formulated by Goodman (1998). In due time the project management structure it to be phased out, once the schoolBeat method has been adopted as part the regular working procedure of health promoting agencies and schools. It should be replaced by a sustainable network-structure or integrated in an

99

100

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

already existing collaboration. These issues require communication efforts of the collaborating partners, supported by the schoolBeat coordinator. Studies on applications of this model should indicate the added value of the model as a diagnosis instrument for health-promotion collaborations, if present. Hence, it is also possible that the model itself will need to be adjusted and will ‘change colour’ as well.

Concluding Remarks The schoolBeat-approach is made up of six – relatively easy to apply – steps as part of a coordinated support of tailored school health promotion. Field experience with these steps is still limited. From other studies, it is widely accepted that general community programs take may years to produce results (Goodman, 1998). Hence, little can be said about its proven effectiveness as yet. During the initial development of the schoolBeat approach some shortcomings were identified, which were addressed as well. As some of the introduced new concepts in school health promotion deal with one or more of the priority areas for enhancing the effectiveness of school health promotion, it seems worthwhile to take a long-term perspective with this approach. In the meantime, some of these new concepts have been lifted from the regional level to the national level to facilitate long-term regional implementation. For example, application of the schoolBeat quality-checklist to nationally available school-based health promotion programs does not fit fully with the set tasks of regional health promotion agencies. On the other hand, application of the checklist and making assessment results publicly available does fit with tasks set by the National Government for National Health Promotion Institutes to support regional and local health promotion. Based on theoretical planning, formative research and preliminary fieldwork, we have high expectations of the added value of the ‘schoolBeat quality-checklist’ and the ‘DISC-model’ in the field of school health promotion. The use of the quality checklist and the diagnosis-model in other countries and cultures is welcomed in order to gain a wide spectrum of field experiences and insights into possible points for improvement.

The Tailored Schoolbeat-Approach: New Concepts for Health Promotion in Schools

Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank the schoolBeat coalition partners (schools, municipalities, health promotion and welfare organizations: Bureau Youth Care Limburg, RIAGG Maastricht, Mondriaan Zorggroep, Trajekt, Maastricht Public Health Institute, NIGZ and Maastricht University) for their constructive advice and support in developing and realizing the schoolBeat approach. Thanks also to Justin Winton for his help in the preparation of this manuscript. The schoolBeat study is supported by a grant from ZonMW Healthy Living (project 4010.003) and from the OGZ Foundation (project p342).

References Ader, M., Berensson, K., Carlsson, P., Granath, M. and Urwitz, V. (2001) ‘Quality indicators for health promotion programmes’ Health Promotion International, 16, 2: 187-195. Allensworth, D. and Kolbe, L. (1987) ‘The comprehensive school health program: exploring an expanded concept’, Journal of School Health, 57, 409-412. Bartholomew, L.K. Parcel, G.S., Kok, G. and Gottlieb, N.H. (2001) Intervention Mapping: Designing Theory and Evidence Based Health Promotion Programs, Mayfield. Boerma, L. and Hegger, W. (2001) Gezond op school – een methodiek om team en ouders samen te laten beslissen over prioriteiten op het gebied van gezondheid [Health at school – a workshop for parents and staff on prioritizing in school health promotion], ITS/NIGZ. Buijs, G., Jong, A. de, Paulussen, T. and Wijngaarden, J. van (2002) Landelijk actieprogramma schoolgezondheidsbeleid [National Action Program School Health Promotion], NIGZ. Buijs, G., Ausems, M. and Leurs, M. (2004) schoolSlag-prioriteiten workshop Voortgezet Onderwijs [schoolBeat priority workshop secondary education], NIGZ. Cameron, R., Jolin, M.A., Walker, R., McDermott, N. and Gough, M. (2001) ‘Linking science and practice: toward a system for enabling communities to adopt best practices for chronic disease prevention’, Health Promotion International, 16, 1, 35-42.

101

102

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

Cuijpers, P., Jonkers, R., Weerd, I. de, and Jong, A. de. (2002) ‘The effects of drug abuse prevention at school: “The Healthy School and Drugs” project’ Addiction, 97, 67-73. Deschesnes, M., Martin, C. and Jomphe Hill, A. (2003) ‘Comprehensive approaches to school health promotion: how to achieve broader implementation?’ Health Promotion International, 18, 4, 387-396. Goffin, A. (2004) ‘Successful inter-agency collaboration: health agencies working together to better promote health in schools – the Health Promoting Schools Partnership Groups, South Australia’ paper presented at the World Conference on Health Promotion & Health Education, Melbourne, 26-30 April. Goodman, R.M. (1998) ‘Principles and tools for evaluation community-based prevention and health promotion programs’, Journal of Public Health Management Practice, 4, 2, 37-47. Green, L.W. and Kreuter, M.W. (1999) Health Promotion and Planning: An Educational and Ecological Approach, Mayfield Publishing Company. Green, L.W. and Lewis, F.M. (1986) Measurement and Evaluation in Health Education and Health Promotion, Mayfield Publishing Company. Greenberg, M.T. (2004) ‘Current and future challenges in school-based prevention: the researcher perspective’, Preventive Medicine, 5, 1, 5-13. Jones, J.E., Scanlon, K., Raphael, B., Hillin, A., McAlpine, R., Critchley, A., Stonehouse, R., McKie, D., Kerr-Roubicek, H. and Meerman, G. (2002) ‘Health and Education Working Together: The New South Wales School-Link Initiative’, International Journal of Mental Health Promotion, 4, 4, 36-43. Judd, J., Frankish, C.J. and Moulton, G. (2001) ‘Setting standards in the evaluation of community based health promotion programmes – a unifying approach’, Health Promotion International, 16, 4, 367-380. Kolbe, L.J. (1986) ‘Increasing the impact of school health promotion programs: emerging research perspectives’, Health Education, 17, 47-52. Lee, A., Tsang, C., Lee, S.H. and To, C.Y. (2003) ‘A comprehensive “healthy schools programme” to promote school health: the Hong Kong Experience in joining the efforts of health and education sectors’, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 57, 174-177. Leurs, M., Jansen, M. and Ruiter, M. (2002) ‘Coordinated School Health Program: het ‘Gezonde School Model’ van de toekomst?’ Tijdschrift voor Gezondheidswetenschappen, 80, 7, 471-473, 2002.

The Tailored Schoolbeat-Approach: New Concepts for Health Promotion in Schools

Leurs, M. (2003) ‘Gezondheidsbevordering in het onderwijs: de schoolSlaguitdaging [health promotion in schools: the schoolBeat challenge]’, Remediaal, 4, 1, 2-8. Leurs, M., Mur-Veeman, I., Schaalma, H. and Vries, N. de (2003) ‘Integrale samenwerking gaat verder dan de samenwerking tussen professionals: introductie van het DISC-model [Integrated collaboration continues beyond professional collaboration: introduction of the DISC-model]’, Tijdschrift voor Gezondheidswetenschappen, 81, 6, 369-373. Leurs, M. (2004) ‘Report of the Health Promoting Schools Day at the IUPHE Conference – Melbourne 2004’ Tijdschrift voor Gezondheidswetenschappen, (accepted for publication). Leurs, M.T.W., Schaalma, H.P. Jansen, M.W.J., Mur-Veeman, I.M. and Vries, N.K. de (2005) Development of a collaborative model to improve school health promotion in the Netherlands. Health Promotion International, Advance Access published March 29, 2005. Lier, P. van, Muthén, B., Sar, R. van der, and Crijnen, A. (2002) ‘Preventing disruptive behavior in elementary schoolchildren: I impact of a universal classroom-based intervention’ in: Lier, P.A.C. van Preventing Disruptive Behavior in Early Elementary Schoolchildren, Erasmus University Rotterdam (dissertation) 82, 7, 467-468. Lister-Sharp, D., Chapman, S., Stewart-Brown, S. and Sowden, A. (1999) ‘Health promoting schools and health promotion in schools: two systematic reviews’, Health Technology Asssessment, 3, 22. Marshall, B.J., Sheehan, M.M., Northfield, J.R., Maher, S., Carlisle, R. and St.Leger, L.H. (2000) ‘School-based health promotion across Australia’, Journal of School Health, 6, 251-252. Marx, E. and Wooley, S.F. (1998) Health is Academic. A Guide to Coordinated School Health Programs, Education Development Center Inc. Mc.Leod, J. (2003) The Partnership Analysis Tool: For Partners inHealth Promotion VicHealth. Molleman, G.R.M., Peters, L.W.H., Hosman, C.M.H., Hommels, L.M., Ploeg, M.A., Kok, H.H. and Llopis, E. (2003) ‘De Preffi 2.0: systematische ontwikkeling van een kwaliteitsinstrument voor gezondheidsbevordering [The Preffi 2.0: systematic development of a quality instrument for health promotion]’ Tijdschrift voor Gezondheidswetenschappen, 81, 5, 247-55.

103

104

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

Mur-Veeman, I.M. and Raak, A. van (1994) ‘Interorganizational networks on the Dutch home health care market’, International Journal of Health Planning and Policy, 9, 245-258. Nutbeam, D., Aar, L. and Catford, J. (1989) ‘Understanding children’s health behaviour: the implications for health promotion for young people’, Social Sciences and Medicine, 29, 3, 317-325. Paulussen, Th. (2002) ‘Voeren scholen een gezondheidsbeleid?’ in: Jansen J, Schuit AJ, Lucht F van der. Tijd voor gezond gedrag. Bevorderen van gezond gedrag bij specifieke groepen [Time for healthy behavior. Health promotion for specific groups]. RIVM/Bohn Stafleu Van Loghum. Peters, L.W.H. (2001) De Netwerkbenadering. Review [The Network-approach – a review]. NIGZ Center for Review and Implementation. Peters, L.W.H. and Keijsers, J.F.E.M. (2002) Kwaliteitscriteria voor gezondheidsbevorderende interventies in en om scholen: review en checklistontwikkeling [Quality criteria for school health promotino interventions: review and checklist development]. NIGZ Center for Review and Implementation. Peters, L.W.H., Leurs, M.T.W., Jansen, M.W.J., Keijsers, J.F.E.M. and Schaalma, H.P. (2004). ‘Ontwikkeling van de schoolSlag checklist voor kwaliteit van schoolgerichte interventies [Development of the schoolBeat checklist for the quality of HPS interventions]’, Tijdschrift voor Gezondheidswetenschappen, 82, 1, 50-57. Pratt, J., Pampling, D. and Gordon, P. (1998) Partnerships Fit for Purpose? King’s Fund. Pijpers, F.I.M. (1999). School Health Policy in Primary Education, Leiden University (dissertation). Raak, A. van, Mur-Veeman, I., Hardy, B., Steenbergen, M. and Paulus, A. (2003) Integrated Care in Europe: Description and Comparison of Integrated Care in Six EU Countries, Elzevier Gezondheidszorg. Ravensbergen, J. (2003) ‘ZON, ZonMW en Effectieve Implementatie’ in Ravensbergen, J., Friele, R., Keijsers, J., Wensing, M. and Klazinga, N. Zicht – nieuwe Wegen voor Implementatie [In sight – new roads towards implementation], Koninklijke Van Gorcum. Rissel, C. and Bracht, N. (1999) ‘Assessing Community Needs, Resources, and Readiness – Building on Strengths’ In: Bracht, N. (ed) Health promotion at the Community Level 2nd ed. Sage Publications, Inc.

The Tailored Schoolbeat-Approach: New Concepts for Health Promotion in Schools

Rogers, E., Moon, A.M., Mullee, M.A., Speller, V.M. and Roderick, P.J. (1998) ‘Developing the ‘health promoting school’ – a national survey of healthy school awards’, Public Health, 112, 37-40. Ruland, E., Raak, A. van, Spreeuwenberg, C. and Ree, J. van. (2003) ‘Managing New Public Health: hoe zijn preventieve samenwerkingsverbanden te realiseren? Een agenda voor actie en onderzoek [how can preventive collaborations be realised? An agenda for action and research]’, Tijdschrift voor Gezondheidswetenschappen, 81, 1, 52-55. Schaalma, H.P., Kok, G., Bosker, R.J., Parcel, G.S., Peters, L., Poelman, J. and Reinders, J. (1996) ‘Planned development and evaluation of AIDS/STD education for secondary school students’, Health Education Quarterly, 23, 4, 469-487. Stewart-Brown, S. (2001) ‘Evaluating health promotion in schools: reflections’ in: Rootman, I., Goodstadt, M., Hyndman, B., McQueen, D.V., Potvin, L., Springett, J. and Ziglio, E. Evaluation in Health Promotion: Principles and Perspectives, World Health Organization. St.Leger, L.H. (1999) ‘The opportunities and effectiveness of the health promoting primary school in improving child health – a review of claims and evidence’, Health Education Research, 14, 1, 51-69. St.Leger, L. and Nutbeam, D. (1999) ‘Evidence of effective health promotion in schools’ in: Boddy, D. (ed) The Evidence of Health Promotion Effectiveness: Shaping Public Health in a New Europe, European Union. St.Leger, L. and Nutbeam, D. (2000) ‘A model for mapping linkages between health and education agencies to improve school health’, Journal of School Health, 70, 2, 45-50. Vandenbroucke, S., Lenders, F. and Vinck, J. (1995) ‘De kwaliteit van de planning van gezondheidspromotieprojecten in Vlaanderen [The quality of health promotion intervention planning in Flanders]’, Tijdschrift Gezondheidsbevordering, 16, 3-4, 150-162. Veen, D. van, Day, C. and Walraven, G. (eds) (1998) Multi-Service Schools, Garant Publishers. Walker, R. (2000) Collaboration and alliances: a review for VicHealth Victorian Health Promotion Foundation. Wallerstein, N. (1992) ‘Powerlessness, empowerment, and health: implications for health promotion programs’, American Journal of Health Promotion, 6, 3, 197-205. Yin, R.K. (1994) Case study research, Design and Methods, Applied Social Research Methods Series, Sage Publications.

105

107

6

Implementing Research-based Health Promotion Programmes in Schools: Strategies for Capacity Building Cheryl Vince Whitman

Introduction Health and education are interdependent (UNESCO and WHO 2001). Studies worldwide report the impact of student and teacher health status on student academic performance, teacher morale and absenteeism. The school environment, quality of teaching and years of schooling also affect student health status (WHO 1996). Over the last 15 years, policy and advocacy movements, such as the one which resulted in the Ottawa Charter, argued that, ‘Enabling people to learn, throughout life, to prepare them for all of its stages and to cope with chronic illness and injuries is essential. This has to be facilitated in school, home, work and community settings’ (WHO 1986). In 1995, heeding the call to apply health promotion to school settings, WHO created its Global School Health Initiative. WHO’s approach to school health was consistent with the World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) definition of health as a ‘state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity’ (WHO 1948). This effort was based on the concept of the Health Promoting School (HPS). A Health Promoting School is one ‘that constantly strengthens its capacity as a healthy setting for living, learning and working’ (WHO 2004). A Health Promoting School, as shown in Figure 1, coordinates four major components: 1) policy; 2) curriculum; 3) physical and psycho-social school environment; and 4) health services with teacher, student, parent and community involvement to achieve its goals.

108

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

Figure 1. Components of a Health Promoting School

Adapted from WHO and EDC (unpublished).

As attention to implementing this concept has increased worldwide, donors, policymakers and planners have placed greater emphasis on using researchbased programmes to maximize health and learning outcomes. What evidence is there for the effectiveness of each individual component of a HPS or combinations applied together? Which component is effective for which issues and with which types of students? How do schools—both resource rich and resource poor—choose and use research-based approaches? Answering these questions presents schools with many challenges. To assess and select interventions, education leaders and teachers must have a basic understanding of the language and concepts of social science research and evaluation, as well as basic knowledge from the fields of public health, diffusion of innovation and organizational development. These topics and skills are not taught widely in pre-service or continuing education courses for educators. Beyond the development of individual competencies, there is also the need to build the capacity of the school as a system to introduce and carry out the innovation.

Strategies for Capacity Building

To advance the research-to-practice process in schools, this paper offers the following contributions: • Defines the term, research-based programmes for schools and initiatives around the world to identify and describe the programmes; • Reviews theory-based and practical capacities that schools need to implement research-based programmes • Presents technical assistance strategies that strengthen schools’ capacity to implement research-based programmes

Defining and Identifying Research-Based Health Promotion Programmes for Schools Much of the original work that fostered research-based practice was done in the field of clinical medicine, in an effort to identify the most effective practices for improving patient outcomes. For example, in 1993, the Cochrane Collaboration was formed in England to review results of randomized clinical trials of the most effective treatments of the day. Over time, Cochrane has collected evidence on best practices for treating such conditions as breast and colorectal cancer, dementia, depression and anxiety, cystic fibrosis and many more (Cochrane Collaboration 2004). The Cochrane’s aim is to prepare and maintain systematic reviews of the effects of health interventions and to make this information available to all practitioners, policy makers and consumers. In the nineties, the trend for research-based practice has gradually moved from clinical medicine to address health education and public health interventions within specific settings, such as schools and community agencies. National and international organizations have taken steps to define researchbased programs and criteria and processes for experts to review and select them. For example, the Cochrane Collaboration’s Health Promotion and Public Health Field now works with the health promotion and health education communities to identify their needs and develop a relevant, useful evidence base (Doyle et al. 2003). The terms science-based, research-based and evidence-based are used somewhat interchangeably, but the terms mean different things. Evidencebased tends to be broader in meaning than science-based or research-based and includes the tacit and practical experience of practitioners and others.

109

110

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

Moreover, all evidence is not equal. As defined by Davies et al. (2000), evidence is generally derived from research, in the form of results of systematic investigations that seek to increase knowledge about an issue or phenomenon. Two characteristics of evidence are 1) it can be independently observed and verified and 2) there is widespread consensus about its content. Nutbeam (2001) presents a very broad definition, offered by the UK Government Cabinet Office, that ‘the raw ingredient of evidence is information. Good quality policy making depends upon information from a variety of sources—expert statistics, stakeholder consultation, evaluation of previous policies, new research, if appropriate, secondary resources.’ In the United States, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), has played a leadership role in defining and identifying what the agency refers to as research or science-based programmes for schools and communities. SAMHSA began this effort with substance abuse, mental health and violence prevention programmes and has now extended its work to a broad range of topics. SAMHSA defines a research-based programme as one that: … produces consistently positive patterns of results. Research-based programs are theory-based, have been rigorously evaluated with sound methodology and can demonstrate that the effects are clearly linked to the program itself and not to extraneous factors, elements or events. Targeting specific populations, addressing specific risks, the programme can achieve the same results over and over again, with similar audiences in other similar locations (SAMHSA 2002). To improve professionals’ use of research-based programmes, SAMHSA’s Center for Substance Abuse Prevention created the National Registry of Effective Prevention Programs (NREPP). The programmes in this database have been reviewed and scored by teams of social scientists according to 15 criteria, such as underlying theory, intervention, fidelity in implementing the programme as intended, sampling strategy, cultural and age appropriateness and utility, etc. In defining and selecting research-based programmes, SAMHSA argues for review of both quantitative and qualitative data, the first supplying ‘the raw material for the extensive statistical analyses that lend scientific credence to program results’ and the second, ‘rich, descriptive information needed to explain the effects of program interventions’ (SAMHSA 2002:12).

Strategies for Capacity Building

Another example of a national effort, based on legislative authority, is the U.S. Department of Education’s (USED’s) Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program. In 1998 USED established expert panels to identify exemplary and promising programmes that promote safe, disciplined and drug-free schools (USED 2001). In a two-stage review process, Panels reviewed programmes on substance abuse and violence prevention, for efficacy, quality, educational significance, and usefulness to others, as outlined in Figure 2, U.S. Department of Education’s Criteria for Selecting Evidence-based Programs for Substance Abuse and Violence Prevention. Of 124 programmes reviewed, 9 were designated ‘exemplary’ and 33 were designated ‘promising.’ USED encourages local schools and communities to use their federal funding to implement them. An important factor in implementation of these programmes is an interagency task force of three U.S. national government ministries: SAMSHA’s Center for Mental Health Services, USED and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). The task force has provided funding to 180 school districts in the Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative to implement six different elements of a comprehensive approach, using a research-based programme for each element. (OJJDP 2004). These agencies require schools that receive federal funding to have the same multi-sectoral task force of education, mental health and law enforcement involved in implementation at the local level. In many of the districts funded early in this effort, the local task forces have become institutionalized and remained functioning to operate programmes several years the federal funding ended (Vince Whitman 2004). On the global level, the International Union of Health Promotion and Education (IUHPE) collaborated with the World Health Organization and others to launch the Global Programme for Health Promotion Effectiveness (GPHPE). This programme 1) reviews evidence of effectiveness for political, economic, social and health impact 2) translates evidence into publications, which are accessible to for policymakers, teachers and practitioners; and 3) stimulates debate about the evidence itself. A number of products will be developed from this work (WHO 2004). WHO’s Global School Health Initiative has published an extensive series of documents in its WHO Information Series on School Health, which synthesizes a worldwide research base on effective strategies for addressing particular health issues in schools (WHO 1996–2004).

111

112

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

Figure 2. U.S. Department of Education’s Criteria for Selecting Evidence-Based Programmes for Substance Abuse and Violence Prevention

Evidence of Efficacy • Indicates a measurable difference in outcomes based on statistical significance testing or a credible indicator of magnitude of effect • Uses a design and analysis that adequately control for threats to internal validity, including attrition • Uses reliable and valid outcome measures

Quality of Programme • Goals with respect to changing behaviour and/or risk and protective factors are clear and appropriate for the intended population and setting. • Rationale underlying programme is clearly stated; programme’s content and processes are aligned with its goals. • Programme’s content takes into account characteristics of the intended population and setting (developmental stage, motivational status, language, disabilities, culture) and the needs implied by these characteristics. • Programme implementation process effectively engages the intended population.

Educational Significance • Programme describes how it is integrated into schools’ educational missions.

Usefulness to Others • Programme provides necessary information and guidance for replication in other settings. Adapted from USED (2001: 3-4).

Strategies for Capacity Building

In Europe, the IUHPE Report on Health Promotion Effectiveness for the European Commission contains a chapter dedicated to ‘Effective Health Promotion in Schools’ (IUHPE 2000). St. Leger reviews the properties and evidence of effective approaches, which have been used in Europe over the last decade in a framework of the HPS to achieve maximum success in health and education (St. Leger 2000). Many approaches to school health programmes worldwide—Health Promoting Schools, Child Friendly Schools, Focusing Resources on Effective School Health (FRESH) (UNESCO and WHO 2001) and Coordinated School Health Programs (Marx et al. 1998)—advocate a combination of policy, curriculum-based instruction, health services and a healthy physical and psychosocial school environment, coordinated and targeted to produce specific health outcomes. The approach of coordinating a few targeted strategies has its roots in groundbreaking preventive medicine studies of the early 1970s, such as the Stanford Three Community Study, which demonstrated that media, combined with intensive community education, led to 20–40-percent reductions in saturated fat intake and cholesterol in both men and women (Stern et al. 1976). Similarly, the North Karelia Project in Finland used several strategies for a community-based intervention that successfully reduced smoking and improved dietary habits (Vartiainen et al. 1991). None of these preventive medicine programmes relied on only one strategy. A thematic study conducted as part of the Education for All 2000 Assessment reviewed school health developments during the 1990s and found that combined strategies produced greater effects than individual ones, but that multiple strategies for any one audience must be targeted carefully to a specific outcome (UNESCO and WHO 2001). Most of the evidence base for school health promotion, however, examines only the effects of single components, such as curriculum, each of which is aimed primarily at a single health behaviour. A few studies have begun to research the impact of several coordinated components of a school health programme. For example, O’Donnell et al. (1998) found that combining classroom health instruction with student involvement in community service reduced student risk behaviours more than curriculum alone did. The Child and Adolescent Trial for Cardiovascular Health found that food service changes, enhanced physical education and classroom curricula achieved fat reductions in school lunches and increased physical activity in the target schools as compared to the control schools (Luepker et al. 1996).

113

114

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

Figure 3. Web Resources for Research-Based School Health Promotion Initiatives

Agency

Contents

The Cochrane Collaboration, Cochrane Health Promotion and Public Health Field http://www.vichealth.vic.gov.au/cochrane/ welcome/index.htm

Provides systematic reviews and protocols on public health interventions for various topics, including infectious disease, cardiovascular disease, cancer, drugs and alcohol, mental and social health and injury. Offers links to the Cochrane library and other databases of evidence-based medicine

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services http://prevention.samhsa.gov/ http://preventionpathways.samhsa.gov/

Prevention Pathways provides information on prevention programmes, programme implementation, funding, evaluation TA, online courses and other resources

SAMHSA Model Programs, reviewed by the National Registry of Effective Prevention Programs (NREPP) SAMHSA Model Programs http://modelprograms.samhsa.gov NREPP http://modelprograms.samhsa.gov/ template.cfm?page=nrepbutton

Offers alphabetical listings of SAMHSA’s promising programmes, effective programmes and model programmes; a search tool to find programmes in specific content areas including academic achievement, alcohol use/abuse, antisocial/aggressive behavior, HIV/AIDS, illegal drugs, psychological trauma, social and emotional competency, tobacco and violence Lists NREPP’s evaluation criteria and explains the review process of potential effective programmes

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) Blueprints for Violence Prevention http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ Blueprints for Violence Prevention http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/publications/ PubAbstract.asp?pubi=11721 Successful Program Implementation: Lessons from Blue Prints http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/publications/ PubAbstract.asp?pubi=11719

A report of the Blueprints project, an evaluation of over 600 programmes that identified 11 model programmes and 21 promising programmes that prevent violence and drug use and treat youth with problem behaviours. Report also includes lessons learned about programme implementation and recommendations for those who design, fund and implement such programmes

Strategies for Capacity Building

International Union of Health Promotion and Education (IUHPE) http://www.iuhpe.org Global Health Programme for Health Promotion Effectiveness (GPHPE) http://www.who.int/hpr/ncp/ hp.effectiveness.shtml GPHPE leaflet http://www.who.int/hpr/ncp/docs/ gphpe_brochure.pdf

Describes the GPHPE, the need for evidence of health promotion effectiveness and GPHPE’s key contributions to the field

World Health Organization, School Health and Youth Health Promotion: Global School Health Initiative http://www.who.int/school_youth_health/ en/ WHO Resources and tools for advocacy http://www.who.int/school_youth_health/ resources/en/

Provides an introduction to and background of the Global School Health Initiative, resources and tools for assessment and monitoring effective school health programmes, resources and tools for advocacy (links to WHO School Health publications regarding the physical environment, psychosocial environment, reproductive health, oral health, skills-based health education, sun protection, nutrition, tobacco, HIV/AIDS, helminth infections and violence prevention)

Provides descriptions of IUHPE’s projects, the latest news in the field and links to journals, videos and special reports on the topic of health promotion

(All websites accessed 21 January 2005)

A recent large national study of U.S. adolescents found that students feelings of connectedness to their school community and to caring adults there (the psychosocial component of a HPS) were the most important factors in reducing risk behaviours (McNeely et al. 2002). All these studies illustrate how important it is to find and use the best evidence on various elements (or combinations of elements) that lead to reductions in risk behaviours. St. Leger (2000) has reviewed the properties and evidence of effective approaches for each element used in the HPS framework, in Europe and throughout the world. But, as St. Leger and Nutbeam (2000: 257) note, ‘A paucity of research has examined the effectiveness of using the Health Promoting School framework to address school health issues.’ Until there are more schoolbased studies of the effects of combined strategies, the best available strategy seems to be to draw from studies of individual components and combine the components for maximum success.

115

116

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

The websites of these various national, international and regional efforts define their criteria and their review and selection processes, and provide databases that include descriptions of approved research-based strategies and programmes. See Figure 3, Web Resources for Research-based School Health Promotion Initiatives. The major challenge for educators is to assess whether programmes that have succeeded in one setting with a particular audience will fit their own particular assets, needs and contextual conditions. The next section discusses the capacities and competencies that ministries and schools need to transfer research to practice most effectively.

Theory-Based and Practical Capacities That Schools need to Implement Research-Based Programmes Implementing research-based programmes in schools is analogous to constructing a building. The architect uses engineering principles to create a blueprint for a structure that will meet customer specifications and take into account various aspects of the site. The builder must interpret the plan and often adapt it based on conditions he/she encounters. Similarly, education systems must have the capacity to understand the basic concepts of social science research and evaluation, and have in place processes for selecting and using the programmes, which best fit the health issues, demographic and other conditions of particular schools. Technical assistance (TA) can build the capacity that schools need by nurturing, enhancing and employing the skills and talents of people and institutions at all levels (Yates 2000). Building schools’ capacity requires more than enhancing practitioners’ knowledge and skills. It demands a social-ecological approach, which includes interpersonal processes; institutional factors, such as rules and regulations; community factors, such as connections among groups; policy factors; and relationships between the national, state and local levels and between researchers, programme developers and practitioners. Capacity-building activities promote the following kinds of change: • At the individual level: adoption of healthy behaviours and safe practices • At the policymaker and practitioner level: acquisition of the knowledge and skills needed to advocate for and implement evidence-based practices

Strategies for Capacity Building

• At the organizational level: adoption of policies, creation of structures and operating systems, and dedication of time and financial and human resources that support delivery of evidence-based practice (Stokols 1996) These levels – individual, practitioner and school agency – involve students, teachers, other school personnel, administrators, parents and community leaders and the relationship between the classroom, district and often subnational and national education structures. Figure 4, Social Ecological Framework, illustrates the levels, which all need to be involved to implement research-based programmes. (Langford 2003). Figure 4. Social-Ecological Framework

Adapted from Langford (2003).

The blueprint for selecting and implementing a research-based programme for a HPS often takes the form of a ‘logic model,’ illustrated in Figure 5, The Basic Logic Model, (W.K. Kellogg Foundation 2001). This model guides educators through the process of thinking with final outcomes in mind, so that they can specify goals and objectives, clarify and align the resources and activities to meet those objectives and determine ways to measure progress and outcomes. With such a blueprint in hand, ministries and schools then require the capacity to address Key Factors in Changing Policy and Practice, Figure 6, discussed below (Vince Whitman 1996). The more programme planners can address these factors, the greater the likelihood that they will gain the capacity to transform research findings into practice.

117

118

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

Figure 5. The Basic Logic Model

Goals & Objectives Resources

Activities

Outputs

Outcomes

Impact

1

2

3

4

5

Your Planned Work

Your Intended Results

Adapted from W.K. Kellogg Foundation (2001).

Figure 6. Key Factors in Changing Policy and Practice

Vince Whitman (1996).

Strategies for Capacity Building

One of the first key factors in the process of changing policy and practice is to have a clear vision or big idea to guide outcomes. A vision can be instrumental in leading educators to adopt new and more effective practices. More often than not, change occurs as a result of outside influences. Ideas requiring large changes are more likely to be embraced than ideas involving small, incremental ones (Berman and McLaughlin 1975). Compared to the more narrow and traditional view of school health as classroom instruction, the broader vision of the HPS, the Child Friendly School, and FRESH (UNESCO and WHO 2001) is beginning to take hold worldwide. This vision combines policy, instruction, a healthy school environment and services. Applying research-based practices in this context requires a large change. National and international guidelines (the research and evidence) and advocacy can stimulate and support action. Although local schools decide whether to adopt specific approaches, there is little doubt that their efforts are sparked by and rely on the promulgation of international and national initiatives, which define, promote and encourage adoption of the research base. Studies of physician behaviour in the United States, for example, have shown that dissemination of national guidelines, the evidence about proven clinical practice, has increased by 10 percent the number of physicians who adopt the recommended practice (Cohen et al. 1994). A study of USED’s Principles of Effectiveness policy for school alcohol and drug prevention programmes found that many school districts reported that they were applying the principles and selecting

research-based

curriculum

(Hallfors

and

Godette

2002).

Dissemination of the research and advocacy for its use in schools are beginning to make a difference in the number of schools that attempt to apply it. Data-driven planning and decision-making are critical factors in the research-based process and an area where most school staff have little capacity. Data are needed to understand health, academic and behavioural patterns that underlie risk and protective factors, to analyse demographics for how interventions fit the target population, to assess the financial, human and other resources that can be tapped for programme implementation, and organizational properties that affect the school or district’s readiness to implement the innovation. Tracking progress also requires data, as well as mechanisms to supply the data to planners for course correction and to document the impact of the programme.

119

120

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

Adaptation to Local Concerns Those identified research-based programmes have shown results with a particular audience and under specific conditions. Many of the settings to which a programme will be transferred are not identical to the one that produced results—the cultural diversity of students, the type of school system (urban, rural and suburban), and income level of families – may vary. How much change or adaptation can a programme undergo without threatening its ability to produce the same results? What are the core elements, dosage and duration that cannot be changed? Research shows that attention to fidelity is critical for successful outcomes (Backer 2001). Leadership skill has often been cited by schools and health agencies the primary reasons they have been able to implement innovative programmes. An evaluation of the Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS) programme for ages 6–12 found that good outcomes were associated with principal or headmaster support and high-quality implementation (fidelity, dose, duration). Without the Principal’s support, it would not have been possible to achieve the intended outcomes (Kam et al. 2003). The leader’s commitment, dedication, support and ability to articulate the vision and motivate and inspire others is key (Kotter 1988). For implementing complex ideas (such as the HPS) or complex processes (such as implementing researchbased strategies), leadership talent must exist not only at senior levels, but also at every level in ministries and schools. According to Rogers (1995: 288), ‘Change agent effort, whether [by] the leader or [by] her designee, is known to be a predictor in the rate of diffusion.’ Administrative and management support refers to the human and financial capacities necessary to plan and manage the change process. Such support includes making sure that roles, responsibilities and communication channels are clear and that tasks proceed on time and within budget. A critical mass of people who share supportive norms is necessary for creating new thinking and practices within and across systems. People in groups tend to move toward normative actions, that is, toward what they believe most people are doing. Until and unless enough staff are trained and committed to implementing research-based practices, it is unrealistic to expect a single teacher or administrator returning home from off-site training to be able to effect change. For this reason, professional development needs to provide team training, involving at least three or four people from the same

Strategies for Capacity Building

school or ministry, who can become the critical mass that influences the norms. Further, professional development needs to move beyond one-time events to a continuum that includes face-to-face team training and peer-to-peer learning, followed by coaching and mentoring over time, supporting people as they try new things. Finally, there are the factors of time and readiness. A core team must dedicate adequate time to implementing new programmes. One of the most common reasons a project fails is because managers underestimate how much time it will take and whether their staff and system are ready to take it on. Education systems must determine realistically how much time will be needed and assess staff readiness and willingness to move in the new direction. Once implementation has begun, it typically takes from 18 months to 3 years to actually see or capture evidence of change. In the beginning, the skills of programme implementers—teachers and others—often decline as they try the new skills or strategies, but they gradually surpass their former levels of competence once an innovation is established. Too often we evaluate programmes early on, when experimentation is underway, as shown in Figure 7, Cycle of Implementation, and may fail to capture the change that is happening.

Figure 7. Cycle of Implementation Post implementation Introduction of innovation

Current practices may drop Typical period for evaluation

New practices are implemented and overall practice exceeds preinnovation levels

121

122

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

The capacity to address these key factors can be enhanced by a TA provider who has experience with schools, the social science evidence, the approved research-based programmes and the implementation process. The next section describes TA strategies to strengthen schools’ capacity to convert research into practice.

Technical Assistance Strategies that Strengthen School Capacity for Technology Transfer Aware that implementing research-based programmes requires more than disseminating information about them, many countries and regions have established TA centres or networks. These entities serve as the bridge between academic researchers and findings, and the everyday world of the school and its reform efforts. Research-based programmes are often created by university social scientists or by individual developers, who do not have the interest or capacity themselves to disseminate information or provide support for scaling up implementation in many sites. TA centres are experienced in and can perform this valuable function for many projects and programmes. The European Network of Health Promoting Schools, the more recent Latin American Network of Health Promoting Schools and similar organizations provide a range of TA including informal exchanges of experiences and materials between schools, structured continuing education activities, Web-based resources, publications and implementation tools. Technology transfer is the movement of a new technology from its creator or researcher to a user. The TA centre’s function is to facilitate technology transfer by delivering products and services that lead users to adopt the new technique or product. Services may range from disseminating information about programmes to professional education, coaching and peer learning forums, which offer the opportunity to learn from other teachers and administrators from a range of school systems. Over the past two decades, Health and Human Development Programs (HHD; http://www.hhd.org Accessed 21 January 2005), a division of Education Development Center, Inc. (EDC; http://www.edc.org Accessed 21 January 2005), an international non-governmental organization working worldwide, has designed and operated more than six large TA centres enabling a variety of agencies to transfer research to improve policy and practice. Figure 8 lists the

Strategies for Capacity Building

URLs for these centres and the many resources they offer. Enriching our methods and resources are the lessons we have learned from other countries has been the TA work we have done in our role as a WHO Collaborating Centre to Promote Health Through Schools and Communities. Figure 8. Health and Human Development Programs’ TA Centres Health and Human Development’s TA Centres

URL

Children’s Safety Network National Injury and Violence Prevention Resource Center

http://www.childrenssafetynetwork.org/

USED’s Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention

http://www.edc.org/hec/

The National Center for Mental Health Promotion and Youth Violence Prevention

http://www.promoteprevent.org/

Northeast Center for the Application of Prevention Technologies (CAPT)

http://www.northeastcapt.org/

National Training Center for Middle School Drug Prevention and School Safety Coordinators

http://www.k12coordinator.org/

The Suicide Prevention Resource Center

http://www.sprc.org/

A typical scenario our U.S. TA centres may encounter follows. A local school district hires a professional writer to prepare a competitive grant proposal seeking federal funding for implementing an approved, research-based programme. In the 30 days available for proposal writing, the school district proposes to implement a research-based a programme, having done minimal or no assessment of its suitability for local conditions or assessment of the readiness and motivation to do so. Few processes may be in place for collaboration among staff within the school or between the school and community. After receiving

123

124

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

the grant, the school has an uphill battle, facing obstacles such as stakeholder resistance, lack of time set aside for training, inadequate financial resources to purchase materials and cover training, etc. The grant recipient and TA provider must then solve these challenges. Based on these experiences, and on research into technology transfer and innovation diffusion, we have developed a philosophy for delivering TA. Research shows that the quality of implementation makes a difference in student outcomes (Kam et al. 2003). To effectively improve implementation quality, HHD/EDC’s approach to TA employs six major strategies: 1. Focus on building the relationship between the TA provider and the recipient. 2. Provide customized TA based on assessment and desired ultimate outcomes. 3. Offer a continuum and variety of TA and professional development modalities to accommodate different learning styles. 4. Develop the leadership capacity and skills of change agents at all levels. 5. Use electronic technologies creatively and cost-effectively. 6. Track and monitor progress, with continuous feedback on successes and challenges, to a range of stakeholders. The following sections discuss these six strategies in detail. 1. Focus on building the relationship between the TA provider and the recipient. We believe that the relationships we develop with school staff are most important in the change process. We base our approach on understanding their strengths and concerns, respecting what school staff know about what works for them and their students, families and communities. Loucks-Horsley’s (1996) ‘concernsbased adoption model’ offers the 80/20 rule: Unless you devote 80 percent of your attention to the user’s concerns, you have only a 20-percent chance of success. Technology transfer is not about exchange between expert and non-expert, but between people who possess different spheres of knowledge, each essential for the success of the project. One sphere may relate to the science of intervention and circumstances needed for success; the other sphere may concern the school environment and conditions in which the intervention will be introduced. HHD/EDC uses numerous techniques—basic conversation, surveys and focus groups—to understand school staff’s concerns about the innovation, as well as the strengths they bring to the effort.

Strategies for Capacity Building

2. Provide customized TA based on assessment and desired ultimate outcomes. Each school’s circumstances and stage of readiness are unique and TA must be customized to meet the school where it is in the process. HHD/EDC created a developmental TA model, by which we meet each school at its particular stage of development in the research-to-practice process. A major challenge that schools face in using evidence-based programmes is assessing the fit between characteristics of the setting where results were achieved and the features of their own students and school. Many of the early research-based programmes were developed in more affluent, homogeneous, suburban communities, not ethnically diverse, poorer, urban or rural areas. How does a school choose a programme or approach so that it can achieve the same results as the model. Beginning with the end in mind, as illustrated in the logic model, what resources, inputs and activities will it take to achieve those outcomes? Consistent with the educational goals of the school, what health outcomes does the school want to produce? Guiding schools through this consideration of content and process can focus and align the resources. HHD/EDC has also developed easy-to-use tools to assist schools in assessing both their readiness to undertake implementation and the feasibility of implementing a research-based programme. One U.S. state required every school and community agency that received state funds to use our tools for the process of selecting research-based programmes. By assessing readiness and feasibility with user-friendly tools, local agencies reported that the tools made it much easier for them to understand the research to science process and to select programs that were relevant (Harding and Goddard 2000). 3. Offer a continuum and multiple modalities of professional development events. Research on professional development for educators reports that less than 10 percent of the content taught in one-time workshops or seminars is applied to practice and that ongoing coaching and mentoring are necessary for practice change (Langer 2000). Therefore, our TA offers a continuous series of learning events, with different formats, for different stages in the implementation cycle. As described earlier, HHD/EDC aims to reach teams, not merely individuals, from a school or ministry, to ensure that a critical mass of people returns to the organization and changes its ethos and capacities. Offering a continuum of learning events, from assessment to face-to-face workshops, we focus not only on developing knowledge and skills, but also on building relationships. Typically, we bring teams from the same institution to

125

126

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

an event so they can support one another in creating change when they return home. Our learning events are never one-time only; rather, face-to-face experiences are followed by on-line courses, additional print and Web-based resources and telephone TA. As TA recipients try new things, they generally experience setbacks and obstacles; ongoing support from the TA centre can help them work through their problems and succeed. 4. Develop the leadership capacity and skills of change agents at all levels. Often, we expect people in senior leadership positions at the school or district level to assume this responsibility. We have found that designated leaders may not always act as such and that others emerge who must be nurtured and supported. Therefore, leadership talent must be developed not only in those designated with the responsibility, but also in staff at various levels. As a nurse in one of our programmes stated, “Leadership is having the courage and imagination to do what is necessary without waiting for someone to tell you what to do.” To build leadership for reducing heavy and harmful drinking on college campuses, HHD/EDC’s Higher Education Centre for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention (HEC) searched for presidents of colleges and universities who were creating new prevention strategies. After recruiting six outstanding candidates who were making a difference and serving as leaders, the TA centre created a campaign, The President’s Leadership Group, funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Using case studies from these six exemplary leaders, the campaign, called on all college presidents to take leadership roles on this issue. HEC used many strategies, including rallying all college presidents within a state to come together and sign a commitment to act. This strategy was effective because it avoided single campuses’ having to declare that they had a problem. The six original innovators also participated in many media and public events, calling for change. This initiative has proven to be an effective way to engage presidents in making commitments to action, giving them visibility for their courage and leadership and holding them publicly accountable for policies and prevention strategies on their campuses. Another example of the way we build leadership is the National Training Centre for Safe and Drug-Free School Coordinators, which developed the competencies of approximately 1,000 newly appointed school and community coordinators who were responsible for implementing evidence-based school strategies. Guided and funded by USED, the Centre developed and implemented

Strategies for Capacity Building

a leadership institute, where coordinators could learn leadership skills for creating change and institutionalizing their work. Targeted to individuals, who identified the need for these skills, the institute focused on four broad areas: skills development, knowledge acquisition, personal reflection, and networking and support system development. Content was taken from the fields of prevention, systems change and organizational development. Individual assessments of skills and style were interwoven with time devoted to personal reflection. Opportunities to network with other participants were provided, creating a support system designed to reduce participants’ sense of isolation after they returned home. 5. Use electronic technologies creatively and cost-effectively. The Internet makes it possible to provide ongoing support and services to schools after face-to-face training. Based on research into what is effective, HHD/EDC has mastered the art of creating Web sites that support the implementation of research-based programmes. Our TA centre web sites typically have the following features: • Employ a research-based conceptual framework for approaches to a particular issue, such as substance abuse and violence • Incorporate a range of searchable databases containing publications; tools; research articles; directories of experts, peers and evaluators; etc. Schools can use this wealth of information to learn, network and find solutions for their own problems • Deliver web-based follow-up courses after face-to-face workshops – one form of ongoing coaching and mentoring that research shows is necessary for practice change. Research demonstrates that web-based courses can achieve learning outcomes similar to those of face-to-face courses (Cukier 1997). However the initial cost of developing web-based courses can exceed the costs of developing face-to-face workshops, unless the final product can be used with large numbers of people. Extensive evaluation of our on-line follow-up courses has shown significant changes in participants’ knowledge and practice, even up to six months after the course (Harding and Formica 2001). Most striking are the reported increases in the number of middle school coordinators, who reported that they initiated evidence-based programmes (from 45 to 82 percent) and who increased programme evaluation (from 35 to 78 percent) (Harding and Formica 2001).

127

128

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

• Encourage and facilitate peer learning and exchange of tacit knowledge about experience with the implementation process. By supporting Webbased conversations among practitioners all over a country, we enable them to learn from each other. We have also transformed the Web-based exchange about lessons learned concerning implementation into print products for broad circulation to others (EDC 2002) 6. Track and monitor progress, with continuous feedback from stakeholders Our TA centres must strive to answer two critical questions: What impact are the products and services having on organizations’ and practitioners’ ability to implement research-based programmes? And what is the relative effectiveness – including cost-effectiveness – of various TA approaches? Built into the work of each HHD/EDC TA centre is an evaluation component, conducted by a third-party organization. An evaluation begins by assessing each client and then measures which TA products and services were delivered to whom on which topics. We examine the short- and longer- outcomes (from 3 to 24 months) of specific learning events, examining changes in practitioner knowledge, skill development, actions taken, organizational changes in policy and structure, and customer satisfaction. Some evaluators also maintain databases of anecdotal success; in-depth notes on each TA conversation; and anthropological case studies of what changes took place, how they were brought about and the facilitating and inhibiting factors. The centre often transforms these cases into additional teaching and TA tools. TA centre evaluations have contributed to the documentation and understanding of the many results we have described here. The future demands that we conduct more research on the implementation process itself, to learn in more depth about the cost-effectiveness of various techniques and ways to bring research into practice, shortening the research-to-practice time gap and improving the health of students and staff.

Conclusion If individual children and nations are to achieve their educational goals, more attention must be dedicated to the physical, social and emotional health of students and school staff. In the last 15 years, research has taught us so much about effective strategies for promoting healthy behaviours and environments,

Strategies for Capacity Building

but many of these lessons have not yet been applied. The challenge is still to convince education policymakers that health is vital to academic performance and then to strengthen school capacity to implement research-based health promotion policies and programmes. Quality TA can be instrumental in ensuring quality implementation, which in turn improves student and staff outcomes. In our TA centres, we see that many education and public health agencies are familiar with the concept of research-based approaches and funders’ demands to use funds for this purpose. But the saturation, depth and quality of implementation do not match the level of familiarity with the concepts. There is a long way to go in providing professional development in TA services to school and community staff to gain these competencies. The schools receiving TA are typically the most capable ones, with strong track records in winning grants. By mandate, most TA services go to those funded groups. However, thousands of other school and community agencies need capacity building and a much broader audience could be served. But even this first wave of change has produced numerous benefits. Education and community practitioners have gained new understanding of social science research and methods of evaluating school-based interventions and are asking important questions about programme selection and implementation. Through many training and TA events, TA recipients have become more aware of the need to use local data carefully to ensure the best fit between the intervention and the particular health issue(s), audience and setting. Practitioners have also gained knowledge and skills related to the many organizational and human factors that contribute to success, including the need for collaboration and cost savings and the invaluable impact of a principal or headmaster’s leadership. Planners and school staff have gained confidence from acquiring these new competencies. One school health coordinator commented: “The first thing I learned is to talk the language of the school. Once I could convey how research-based approaches would address academics, discipline and behavioural management, teachers saw the value and were drawn in to participate.” Another benefit of TA is that through forums facilitated by TA centres, researchers and developers have come together with practitioners and national and state

129

130

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

policymakers. The trend itself has increased the connections and dialogue about the many issues involved in using research to improve practice and generated new research questions and evaluation efforts to make more programmes eligible to be judged as exemplary. One of the drawbacks of this recent trend, however, is that many of the approved programmes that have met rigorous criteria for evaluation are singleelement, single-topic programmes. Many have been evaluated in mainstream, resource-rich communities. Because of the cost and difficulty of conducting controlled studies of multiple elements, relatively few such studies exist. Lacking an organizing framework and evidence for broader strategies, many schools select ‘packaged programmes’ that tend to be narrow. Even when schools select multiple research-based components, the components are typically unrelated in terms of health topics, as well as uncoordinated in terms of implementation. The schools thus miss an opportunity to maximize impact. As the evidence about what works grows, what remains most valuable for implementing schools and agencies is acquisition of the knowledge and skills needed to understand social science and public health methodologies. With such knowledge and skills in place, they can continually assess the everchanging needs of their constituents and plan, implement and monitor proven approaches. With high staff turnover rates in schools, ongoing ways to develop and evaluate these competencies are essential. For TA centres to be effective, innovative work for the future lies in improving services by evaluating 1) the relative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of various TA strategies and dosages; 2) the effect of financial incentives requiring that funding be used primarily or only for research-based programmes; and 3) the impact of TA strategies on practitioners’ knowledge and skills, the organization itself, and the education and health outcomes for students and staff. With the growing realization of the interdependence of health, education and human and economic development, investments in this arena could produce untold savings in the costs of academic failure, delinquency and chronic disease. We owe it to the many committed practitioners who strive every day to serve society, and to the children and adolescents whose lives are affected, to make wise decisions about these investments—and then to make the investments.

Strategies for Capacity Building

Acknowledgements I would like to pay tribute to the leadership provided by the directors of EDC/HHD’s technical assistance centres, who have designed innovative national systems to support schools in implementing evidence-based programmes: Connie Constantine, Tania García, Yvette Lamb, Deborah Haber, Ginger Mackay-Smith and Lloyd Potter. Their work has informed and provided many ideas for this article. Special tribute is also owed to Mr. Jack Jones and Mr. Charles Gollmar of the World Health Organization in Geneva, whose commitment to Health Promoting Schools over many years has made so much possible for others worldwide; to Carmen Aldinger for the technical assistance she has given to schools in many countries; to Mr. Frans Rameckers of EDC-Europe, the bridge for our work across the Atlantic, and to Ms. Kathryn Curran and Ms. Tracie Robinson for their patient assistance with this chapter.

References Backer, T. (2001) Finding the Balance: Program Fidelity and Adaptation in Substance Abuse Prevention, Rockville, MD: National Center for Advancement of Prevention (NCAP). Backer, T.E., David, S.L. and Soucy, G. (1995) Reviewing the Behavioral Science Knowledge Base on Technology Transfer, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Research Monograph 155, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health. Berman, P. and McLaughlin, M. (1975) ‘The findings in review’ Federal Programs Supporting Educational Change, IV, The RAND Corporation. Cochrane Collaboration (2004a) Cochrane Health Promotion and Public Health Field. What Is a Systematic Review? [online]. Available from: www.vichealth.vic.gov.au/cochrane/overview/syst_reviews.htm (Accessed 21 January 2005) Cochrane Collaboration (2004b) The Cochrane Library [online]. Available from: http://www.cochrane.org (Accessed 21 January 2005) Cohen, S., Halvorson H.W. and Gosselink, C.A. (1994) ‘Changing physician behavior to improve disease prevention’ Preventive Medicine, 23: 284–291. Cukier, J. (1997) ‘Cost-benefit analysis of telelearning: developing a methodology framework’ Distance Education, 18, 1: 137-152.

131

132

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

Dash, K., Vince Whitman, C., Harding, W., Goddard, C. and Adler, M. (2003) Applying Effective Strategies for Violence and Substance Abuse Prevention, Health and Human Development Programs, Education Development Center, Inc. Davies, H.T., Nutley, S.M. and Smith, P.C. (eds) (2000) What Works? Evidence-Based Policy and Practice in Public Services, Policy Press. Doyle, J., Waters, E. and Jackson, N. (2003) ‘New developments for effectiveness systematic reviews in health promotion: Cochrane Health Promotion and Public Health Field’ Promotion and Education, 10, 3: 118–119. EDC, (Education Development Center, Inc.) (2002) Lessons from the Field: A Celebration of MSC Successes. Proceedings of the 2002 National Technical Assistance Meeting, Washington, D.C. Goddard, C. and Harding, W. (2003) Toolkit: Selecting the Program That’s Right for You, CSAP’s Northeast Center for the Application of Prevention Technologies. Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, Education Development Center, Inc. Hallfors, D. and Godette, D. (2002) ‘Will the “Principles of Effectiveness” improve prevention practice? Early findings from a diffusion study’ Health Education Research, 17, 4: 461–470. Harding, W. and Formica, S.W. (2001) Evaluation Results For: Middle School Drug Prevention and School Safety Coordinators Online Continuing Education Events Summary Report [online], Social Science Research and Evaluation. Available from: http://www.hhd.org/documents/MSC_document_2.pdf (Accessed 21 January 2005) Harding, W. and Goddard, C. (2000) Assessing the Feasibility of Implementing a ScienceBased Prevention Program: A Tool for Practitioners, Paper presented at Working Together for Prevention: Building State and Community Systems, National Conference for the State Incentive Grant and the Center for the Application of Prevention Technologies Programs, Washington, D.C., February 2000. IUHPE (International Union for Health Promotion and Education) (2000) The Evidence of Health Promotion Effectiveness: Shaping Public Health in a New Europe, A Report for the European Commission, 2nd edition, European Commission. Kam, C., Greenberg, M.T. and Walls, C.T. (2003) ‘Examining the role of implementation quality in school-based prevention using the PATHS curriculum’ Prevention Science, 4, 1: 55–63. Kotter, P. (1988) The Leadership Factor, Free Press, Macmillan.

Strategies for Capacity Building

Langer, J.A. (2000) ‘Excellence in English in middle and high school: how teachers’ professional lives support student achievement’ American Educational Research Journal, 37, 2: 171–185. Langford, L. (2003). Using Policy as Part of a Public Health Approach, Presentation at AllHHD Meeting, Education Development Center, Inc., Newton, Massachusetts, 3 November 2003. Loucks-Horsley, S. (1996) ‘Professional development for science education: a critical and immediate challenge’ in Bybee, R. (ed) National Standards and the Science Curriculum, Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co. Luepker, R.V., Perry, C.L., McKinlay, S.M., Nader, P.R., Parcel, G.S., Stone, E.J., Webber, L.S., Elder, J.P., Feldman, H.A., Johnson, C.C., Kelder, S.H. and Wu, M. (1996) ‘Outcomes of a field trial to improve children’s dietary patterns and physical activity: the Child and Adolescent Trial for Cardiovascular Health (CATCH)’ Journal of the American Medical Association, 275, 10: 768–776. Marx, E., Wooley, S.F. and Northrop, D. (1998) Health Is Academic: A Guide to Coordinated School Health Programs, Teachers College Press. McIntyre, L., Belzer Jr., E.G., Manchester, L., Blanchard, W., Officer, S. and Simpson, C.A. (April 1996) ‘The Dartmouth Health Promotion Study: a failed quest for synergy in school health promotion’ Journal of School Health, 66, 4: 132-137. McNeely, C.A., Nonnemaker, J.M. and Blum, R.W. (2002) ‘Promoting school connectedness: evidence from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health’ Journal of School Health, 72, 4: 138–146. McQueen, D.V. (2003) ‘Judging the success of the Global Programme on Health Promotion Effectiveness’ Health Promotion and Education, 10, 3: 117–118. Northeast Center for the Application of Prevention Technologies (NECAPT) (1999) Science-based Substance Abuse Prevention at a Glance: Key Elements [online], Health and Human Development Programs, Education Development Center, Inc. Available from: www.northeastcapt.org/products/frameworks/framework.html (Accessed 21 January 2005) Nutbeam, D. (2001) ‘Evidence-based public policy for health: matching research to policy need’ Health Promotion and Education Quarterly Supplemental, Special Edition, 2: 1519. O’Donnell, L., Stueve, A., San Doval, A., Duran, R., Atnafou, R., Haber, D., Johnson, N., Murray, H., Grant, U., Juhn, G., Tang, J., Bass, J. and Piessens, P. (1998) ‘Violence prevention and young adolescents’ participation in community youth service’ Journal of Adolescent Health, 24, 1: 28-37.

133

134

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

Prochaska, J. and DiClemente, C. (1982) ‘Transtheoretical therapy: toward a more integrative model of change’ Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 19: 276-288. Rogers, E.M. (1995) Diffusion of Innovations, 4th edition, Free Press. Stern, M.P., Farquhar, J.W., McCoby, N. and Russell, S.H. (1976) ‘Results of a two-year health education campaign on dietary behavior’ Circulation, 54, 5: 826–833. St. Leger, L. (2000) ‘Effective health promotion in schools’ The Evidence of Health Promotion Effectiveness: Shaping Public Health in a New Europe, A Report for the European Commission by the International Union for Health Promotion and Education Part II, 2nd edition, European Commission. St. Leger, L. and Nutbeam D. (2000) ‘Research into health promoting schools’ Journal of School Health, 70, 6: 257-259. Stokols, D. (1996) ‘Translating social ecological theory into guidelines for community health promotion’ American Journal of Health Promotion, 10, 4: 282–298. United Nations Education Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and World Health Organization (WHO) (2001) Thematic Studies: School Health and Nutrition. World Education Forum. Education for All 2000 Assessment [online], Vince Whitman, C., Aldinger, C., Levinger, B. and Birdthistle, I. Paris. Available from: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001235/123549e.pdf (Accessed 21 January 2005) United States Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) (2002) Science-Based Prevention Programs and Principles 2002: Effective Substance Abuse and Mental Health Programs for Every Community. United States Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), The Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative [online]. Available from: http://www.sshs.samhsa.gov/initiative/about.aspx (Accessed 21 January 2005) United States Department of Education (USED), Safe, Disciplined and Drug-Free Schools Expert Panel (2001) Exemplary and Promising, Safe, Disciplined and Drug-Free Schools Programs. United States Department of Education (USED), Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program (2002) Leaving No Child Behind: Results-Based Strategies For Safe and Drug-Free Schools, A report from the 2002 National Technical Assistance Meeting. Vartiainen, E., Tossavainen, K., Viri, L., Niskanen, E. and Puska, P. (1991) ‘The North Karelia youth programs’ Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 623, 1: 332-349. Vince Whitman, C. (1996) HHD’s Approach to Changing Policies and Practices in Systems, Presentation to the EDC Board of Trustees, Education Development Center, Inc., Health and Human Development Programs, Newton, Massachusetts.

Strategies for Capacity Building

Vince Whitman, C. (2004) The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s National Center for Mental Health Promotion and Youth Violence Prevention: Implementing and Evaluating a Multi-component Approach, Paper Presented at the Third Biennial World Conference on the Promotion of Mental Health and Prevention of Mental and Behavioural Disorders, New Zealand. W.K. Kellogg Foundation (2001) Logic Model Development Guide: Using Logic Models to Bring Together Planning, Evaluation & Action [online]. Available from: http://www.wkkf.org/Pubs/Tools/Evaluation/Pub3669.pdf (Accessed 21 January 2005) World Health Organization (WHO) (1948) Preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Organization as adopted by the International Health Conference, New York, 19–22 June 1946, signed on 22 July 1946 by the representatives of 61 States (Official Records of the World Health Organization, no. 2, p. 100) and entered into force on 7 April 1948. World Health Organization (WHO) (1996) The Status of School Health, The School Health Working Group, WHO Expert Committee on Comprehensive School Health Education and Promotion, Geneva. World Health Organization (WHO) (1996–2004) WHO Information Series on School Health [online]. Available from: www.who.int/school_youth_health/resources/en/ (Accessed 21 January 2005) World Health Organization (WHO) (2003) Global Programme on Health Promotion Effectiveness [online]. Available from: http://www.who.int/hpr/ncp/hp.effectiveness.shtml (Accessed 21 January 2005) World Health Organization (WHO) (2004) What Is a Health Promoting School? [online]. Available from: http://www.who.int/school_youth_health/gshi/hps/en (Accessed 21 January 2005) World Health Organization (WHO) (1986) Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion, Report from the First International Conference on Health Promotion, Ottawa, 21 November 1986. World Health Organization (WHO) and Education Development Center, Inc. (EDC) (unpublished) Rapid Assessment and Action Planning Process (RAAPP): A Method and Tools to Enable Ministries of Education and Health to Assess and Strengthen Their Capacity to Promote Health Through Schools. Yates, M.E. (2000) ‘What is capacity building?’ Research to Reality: A Newsletter of the Harvard Center for Children’s Health, 5, 1.

135

137

7

Health Education and Environmental Education: The Case for Integration Jörgen Svedbom

Introduction Health Education (HE) and Environmental education (EE) are assuming great importance all over the world in response to the fact that global environmental and health problems are growing in scale and complexity. Naturally many politicians and policy makers think that school education is a powerful way to tackle these problems and therefore support projects and programs on HE and EE (Environmental Education 2005). This has resulted in different national and international initiatives such as ‘Green schools’, ‘Eco Schools’, ‘Healthy Schools’, ‘Health Promoting Schools’ etc. At the same time, and because of financial reorientation in many countries, schools and other public institutions have been subjected to financial cutbacks. These cutbacks can result in a competition between different issues at school level, e.g. between HE and EE. But there are so many connections between the development of health problems and environmental problems and so many similarities between HE and EE that cooperation and integration between the two issues should be explored, rather than seeing them as two aspects of education in competition. The purpose of this chapter is to explore the conditions for a mutually beneficial integration of HE and EE within schools.

138

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

Environmental and Health Problems Environment The history of mankind is the history of environmental pollution and environmental problems (Hubendick 1985), and these have changed dramatically over the last 150 years. Up to the beginning of the 20th century most environmental problems in industrialised countries were local: smoke and waste from industries, power plants etc. caused heavy pollution in the neighbourhood of these works. However, with continued industrial expansion and development polluting agents were released higher up in the atmosphere and moved over longer distances from the source. This resulted in more diluted polluting agents but at the same time these diluted agents covered bigger areas. The environmental problems became regional! While the introduction of cleaning equipment and more efficient processes in the industry and power plants reduced this kind of pollution, concurrently a lot of small-scale polluters such as cars, refrigerators, freezers, Hg- and NiCdcells and electronic equipment were introduced. In addition, the consumption of energy increased considerably with a growing demand for electricity. Together these sources of pollution have contributed to huge, global environmental problems such as the global warming, degradation of the ozone layer, pollution of the sea, erosion of soils, and extinction of species. These kinds of problems can be seen as a consequence of our present economic system and predominating economic theory with its constant struggle for increasing economic growth, and this in turn makes it very difficult to stabilise these kinds of global environmental problems, let alone reverse them (Tiberg 1993). Health The profile of global health has also changed substantially over the last 150 years. Infectious diseases such as tuberculosis, cholera, smallpox etc. were the most common causes of death in the pre-industrial and industrial world up to the middle of the 20th Century. But with better standards of housing, nutrition and hygiene as well as more efficient health care systems, infectious diseases decreased, especially with the introduction of antibiotics. With these changes, greater affluence and substantial improvements in life expectancy have come dramatic increases in so-called ‘life-style’ diseases, such as diabetes, obesity, cancer, and cardiovascular diseases. An increasingly elderly population has also brought with it increasing levels of degenerative diseases, such as dementia. In

Health Education and Environmental Education: The Case for Integration

addition, health problems of a social and psychological character have increased e.g. depression, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorders, stressrelated conditions and addictions. These kinds of problems may be connected with wide-ranging changes in society, work-life balance, media/communication, and family structures and Borgenhammar (1997) argues that such changes have led to a loss of trust among people. He even labels these problems ‘lack of trust-diseases’. It has also been suggested that these social diseases are the result of a large-scale loss of what Antonovsky (1987) calls salutogenic factors such as coherence, purpose and meaningfulness. The constant struggle for economic growth leads to bigger and bigger systems that are difficult to understand and control. The ever-increasing speed in society reduces time for reflection and for development of understanding and coherence (Hylland Eriksen 2001). And the strong tendency to individualization in our societies threatens the development of trust and social capital. (Putnam 2000).

The Role of Education in Tackling Environmental and Health Problems In many countries politicians see the education system (including schools) as an important way to tackle environmental and health problems. In the Central European pedagogical tradition, ‘didactics’ is understood as the scientific reflection on the relations between the aims, the content and the methods for a given education. Such reflections are linked to the following key questions: • Why? (why should we teach about this – what are our aims and goals?), • What? (what shall be the content of this education if we want to reach our aims and goals?) and • How? (how shall we teach – what methods shall we use to realize the aims/goals?). What are the differences and similarities between HE and EE from a didactical perspective? Are the aims, means and methods of HE different from those involved in EE? And what didactical reasons can be given for an integration of HE and EE? There are three different rationales for combining or integrating HE and EE, which focus on instrumental reasons, on holistic reasons and on efficiency reasons.

139

140

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

An instrumental approach An instrumental approach can be taken in two directions. In the first approach, attention is paid to the fact that health can be seriously damaged by different kinds of environmental pollution. Therefore promotion of health is taken as a reason for developing and delivering EE. The idea behind this approach is that people care more about their own individual health than for the common environment, and by stressing that environmental degradation is likely to damage personal health, people will care more about the environment. In this approach, environmental impact on health is used as a ‘tool’, or instrument, to motivate integration between EE and HE. The second approach starts with health, and argues that if a person experiences mental well-being, where the different levels of the personality are in a harmonic balance with each other, they will experience less of a need to struggle for continuously increasing levels of luxurious consumption which pollutes and damages the natural environment (Moberg 1985). This instrumental approach uses mental health impacts on the environment as a ‘tool’ to support integration of EE and HE. A holistic approach As opposed to the instrumental approach a holistic approach means looking upon HE and EE as two different sides of the same coin. And in this case the ‘coin’ is life on earth. In this approach every living creature is apprehended as a part of life itself and thus connected to all other creatures living on earth, now and in the future (as well as in the past). This kind of understanding of life, nature and environment can be illustrated by the speech from the Indian chief Seathl (or Seattle) in his negotiations with the Washington district governor General Stevens about Indian land where he said (Jansson and Stride 1980): “Man didn’t weave the great web of life. He is just a thread in this web. And everything he does to this web, he does to himself” In this approach to HE and EE, there is very little difference between HE and EE. HE has to do with environment and EE has to do with health. This kind of education is not very common in the western, industrialized part of the world. It is mostly connected with movements or associations concerned with philosophical ideas such as deep ecology or ‘ecosophy’. Also in traditional

Health Education and Environmental Education: The Case for Integration

cultures, (that should not be denigrated as ‘primitive’), such views upon nature, life, man and health are more common. An efficiency approach Another reason for combining or integrating HE and EE is that such integration can increase the relevance and efficiency of teaching these issues, especially when financial cut-backs risk to reduce the resources for both HE and EE. To explore the conditions for such relevance and efficiency-gains, it is important to analyse what some of the more important international documents on HE and EE, the Ottawa Charter (1986) and The Tbilisi Declaration (1977), say about the didactical perspective. The Ottawa Charter does not speak explicitly about health education but about health promotion. An important part of health promotion in schools is HE. According to this Charter health promotion is: ‘… the process of enabling people to increase control over, and to improve, their health (...) The fundamental conditions and resources for health are peace, shelter, education, food, income, a stable ecosystem, sustainable resources, social justice and equity (...).People cannot achieve their fullest potential unless they are able to take control of those things which determine their health.’ If the Ottawa Charter is applied to HE in school, it should be: The educational process that enables the students to take control over those things that determine their health. Thus, the aim of HE is that students shall be able (and willing) to ‘take control over’ these factors that determine their health. The Tbilisi Declaration, defines EE as the kind of education: ‘ ... that prepares the human being for life through making her aware of the complex problems in the world today and through giving her the skills and qualities needed to play a productive role in the efforts to improve living conditions and to care for environment with appropriate anchoring in ethical values. Through a holistic attitude, rooted in broad, multidisciplinary soil, environmental education creates an overall perspective that takes into account the fact that the physical and manmade environments are closely depending on each other.’

141

142

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

In the Tbilisi Declaration, the aim of EE can be summarized with the words awareness, knowledge, attitudes, skills, and participation. The goals for the education are put on the knowledge and attitude levels while Ottawa Charter places the goal for HE on the action level (to ‘take control over’ meaning a competence to act). What would happen if we introduced aims on the action level in EE? Can we use the formulations from Ottawa charter in EE? What would it mean if we assumed that the aim of EE was that people should ‘take control over those factors that determine’ their environment? To explore that, we need to know something about which factors determine people’s health and their environment.

Factors Determining People’s Health and the Environment Firstly, the health status of a population is determined by some factors that we cannot influence e.g. sex, age, genetics etc. In addition to this there are a number of factors, which we are able to influence. These include our own life-style, the conditions under which we live and the structural factors related to the development of the society on the macro level. From an educational, or didactical, perspective the aim of HE can be directed at one or several of these areas. In many countries, and for many years, life-style has been in focus for HE. This kind of HE seems to neglect the fact that people’s life-styles are to a great extent determined by the conditions under which they live and that these conditions are heavily influenced by the structural development of the society. Consequently, a lifestyle-oriented HE runs the risk of being moralistic and inefficient, having very little influence on students’ health. In addition to factors mentioned above we have the so-called ‘protective factors’. These are factors that protect people from being ill and help them to stay healthy in spite of not very healthy (or even quite unhealthy) conditions. This area is attracting more and more interest in HE and examples of such protective factors are social competence, self confidence, coping ability, efficacy, emotional intelligence, sense of coherence, health literacy etc. When we turn to the environmental problems the same kind of factors are in play. There are factors that man can hardly have any influence on, such as volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, cosmic radiation etc. Life-style factors are also very important for the quality of the environment.

Health Education and Environmental Education: The Case for Integration

Such factors can be transport, food and eating habits, energy use, housing, commercial consumption, recycling etc. Life-style factors are to a substantial degree determined by the living conditions which again are determined by structural factors such as economic development, public policy, legislation, industrial structure and development etc. These structural factors, that are important for the development of the environment, are nearly identical to the structural factors that are crucial for the public health of a society. Can we also talk about ‘protective factors’ in relation to the environment? If there are protective factors for the environment, analogous to the health protecting factors, they are probably more physical and external than human and internal. Examples of such factors that are protective to the environment are calcium disposal to increase the buffering capacity of lakes and rivers, increasing the diversity in ecosystems so they are more resistant to changes in physical factors, introduction of plant species that better can resist polluted air etc.

Implications for Education As illustrated above there are many similarities between factors determining health and the environment. Many lifestyle factors are important for both health and for the environment. If the aim of EE and HE is that students modify their life-style into a more healthy and/or environmentally friendly way, the same methods can be used in both HE and EE. Living conditions and the structural factors are more difficult than life-style to influence from an individualistic life-style perspective. Consequently, a more action-oriented pedagogy must be used to develop the competence and willingness among the students to act to change the living conditions in a healthier or more environmentally friendly way. Examples are air-quality, water-quality, housing environment, traffic and transportation systems and fiscal policy. When talking about EE most people think of our natural environment such as forests, rivers, lakes, seas, wildlife etc. But the majority of children and young people, at least in the industrialized, ‘western’ part of the world, are not very often in direct contact with this kind of environment. For most young people, living in urban areas, the most common environment are the streets, the schoolyard, the parks, the housing areas, the traffic etc. Consequently, if EE is to

143

144

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

be engaging and important for young people in urban settings, it must focus on this ‘human-shaped’ part of the environment. This kind of urban environment has more direct and obvious influences on health than has the natural environment. The quality of the streets, parks, playgrounds, traffic systems etc. are more important for the health of young people than the situation in lakes, forests, grasslands, swamps, rivers and seas. So from an instrumental point of view, it could be even more important to integrate urban EE with HE than it is to combine traditional EE and HE. Furthermore, students’ actions in EE, focused on the urban environment, will probably have a more direct influence on their health than actions related to the natural environment.

Integrating Health and Environmental Education – A Case from Sweden How do we develop the skills needed to meet the challenges of the future and ensure the active involvement of future generations in working for sustainable development and good health, locally and globally? ‘From Our Beginnings to Our Futures’ (FOBTOF), is a project developed at School of Education and Communication, Jönköping University in Sweden, which tries to tackle these questions. The FOBTOF project is deeply rooted in the Tbilisi Declaration on environmental education as well as in the Ottawa Charter on health promotion (see Figure 1) The main questions for this project are: • How can we, in basic education, promote pupils´ commitment for sustainable development and good health, locally and globally? • How can teachers prepare for their own, and for their future pupils´ learning for sustainable development and good health? The two most important theoretical fundaments for this project are the concept of Action Competence as developed at the Research Centre for Environmental and Health Education at the Danish university of Education (Jensen 1997) and Antonovsky´s theories on coping and coherence (Antonovsky, 1979, 1987). The practical fundament is the use of modern, computerized information and

Health Education and Environmental Education: The Case for Integration

Figure 1. From Our Beginnings To Our Futures – a model for integrated and action oriented health and environmental education

From Our Beginnings To Our Futures. A Model for Sustainability and Health Education

Local Past

Critical analysis

Social Cultural Economical Natural Etc.

Visions Actions

Future

Global

communication technology (c-ICT), and the purpose is to involve students (1316 year old) in the municipal Agenda 21-programmes for a sustainable development and better health (Agenda 21 1992). This c-ICT-tool works as a matrix, which pupils can use to explore a specific issue or aspect of the subject they are studying. The pupils can choose to explore almost everything they are interested in and which is connected to this subject. The tool makes it possible for the pupils to illustrate social, ethical, cultural, physical and other conditions and changes in a society from our beginnings up to now. The tool also gives opportunities to explore global perspectives on the theme studied (see References for web resources). One purpose of using this learning tool is to stimulate students/pupils reflection on what underpins their own values by responding to questions such as:

145

146

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

• When was the best time to live? • For whom was it best? • What qualities in life have been lost? • What have been added? • What forces have there been behind the changes? • How was the ecological situation for mankind during different eras? • How was their health? • Which lifestyles were/are possible to combine with sustainable development and good health? A second aim to be addressed by pupils in this project is ‘How would we like to live our lives in the future’? Using simulation-style programs, combined with the learning tool, pupils can explore how their different visions of the future relate to sustainable development and good public health. The use of c-ICT allows the pupils in the project to easily establish contacts with other pupils in other parts of the world to present and discuss their different visions of the future with each other. The purpose of this is that the students shall develop an understanding for other cultures but also an understanding for what impacts it could have on people’s environment and health if their own visions would be realized on a global scale. A third aim of the project process is that the pupils shall develop some kind of action plan, and then take action, to realize (parts of) their visions. At this stage in the process, the actions taken should be reflected on, well informed and built upon reliable knowledge. With the help of the c-ICT-tool, the pupils can compare the desired outcome of the actions with the real outcome. If needed and possible, the pupils can start the process with visioning, planning, actiontaking etc. once again This project has not yet been fully evaluated but preliminary results show that this way of organising teaching and learning gives the teachers and students considerable freedom to work with issues they find really interesting. They also use this freedom to develop their own profile of the project. Preliminary results also show that this way of working seems to strengthen some of the protective factors, e.g. self-confidence and empathy by the pupils. These are factors that help the students to manage unhealthy situations and stay healthy.

Health Education and Environmental Education: The Case for Integration

Conclusions From a historical point of view, there are many similarities in the development of health and environmental problems on a global scale. In both areas an historical development can be discerned, as problems have changed from being more local, well defined and potentially manageable, to being global, diffuse and more intractable. In developed societies many environmental and health problems are caused by the same underlying mechanism i.e. the quest for continuous economic growth. This constant struggle results, among other things, in: • Increased energy consumption and material transformation causing global environmental problems • A more hectic life, which produces tensions in the relations between man and man, man and family, man and society and man and the environment • Increased ‘speed’ of life, reducing the possibilities for reflection, over-view, coherence, meaning and trust Currently, therefore, many increasingly serious environmental and health problems appear to have the same underlying causes, and this supports the argument for a far-reaching combination and integration between HE and EE. However, the way EE and HE should or should not be linked depends on how we regard the overall aim of these activities. From an educational point of view health and environmental problems are often treated separately if the aim of the education is to develop knowledge about health and the environment. On the other hand, if the aim is that students develop their own attitudes to life style and living conditions that are crucial for health and environment, a more integrated approach should be used as the fundamental attitudes and values underpinning health and environmentally conscious behaviours are very similar. Furthermore, if the aim of education is to develop students’ competence to act and to facilitate fundamental change, a far-reaching integration between the two subjects is certainly warranted as the root causes behind many environmental and health problems are similar. In conclusion, a far-reaching integration between HE and EE seems necessary if we consider the overall aim of HH and EE as to develop students’ attitudes and values that are friendly to environment and health and to develop their competence to act, individually and jointly. By doing this we also live up to the

147

148

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

international agreements and declarations, such as the Ottawa Charter and the Tbilisi Declaration.

References Antonovsky, A. (1979): Health Stress and Coping. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Antonovsky, A.(1987): Unravelling the Mystery of Health. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Borgenhammar, E. and Olin, R.(1997): Tillitsbristsjukdomar – myt eller verklighet? (Lackof trust-diseases – myth or reality?). Stockholm: Nationella folkhälsokommittén. Hubendick, B.(1985): Människoekologi (Human Ecology). Stockholm: Gidlunds. Hylland Eriksen, T.(2001): Ögonblickets tyranni – snabb och långsam tid i informationssamhället (The tyranny of the moment – fast and slow time in information society). Nora: Nya Doxa. Jansson, L.E. and Stride, E. (1980) Seattles tal 1855 (The speach of Seathl 1855). In De tog vårt land (They stole our land). Stockholm: Indianklubbens årsbok. Jensen, B.B. (1997) ’A case of two paradigms within health education.’ Health Education Research, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 419-428. Moberg, E.(1985) Evas lilla gula – artiklar för återbruk. (Eve´s little yellow – articles for recirculation) Stockholm: Dagens Nyheter. Putnam, R.(2000) Bowling Alone – The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster. Tiberg, N. (1993) Kretslopp i stället för förskingrande flöden. (Circulation instead of embezzling flows). In Sveriges natur. Stockholm: Svenska Naturskyddsföreningen.

Internet References (All accessed 25 February 2005) Agenda 21 (1992) http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/index.htm Environmental Education (2005) http://www.gdrc.org/uem/ee/index.html From Our Beginnings To Our Futures Project http://safari.hj.se/projekt.asp?id=76&lang=eng http://www.hlk.hj.se/se Ottawa Charter (1986)

Health Education and Environmental Education: The Case for Integration

http://www.euro.who.int/AboutWHO/Policy/20010827_2 Tbilisi Declaration (1977) http://www.gdrc.org/uem/ee/tbilisi.html

149

151

8

Skills For Health: Skills-Based Health Education to Teach Life Skills Carmen Aldinger and Cheryl Vince Whitman

Introduction Skills-based health education is an approach to creating or maintaining healthy lifestyles and conditions through the development of knowledge, attitudes, and especially skills, using a variety of learning experiences, with an emphasis on participatory methods. This chapter reviews the body of theory and research that provides a rationale for the benefits and uses of skills-based health education, including child and adolescent development theories, social learning and social cognitive theory, social influence or social inoculation theory, resilience theory, theory of reasoned action and the health belief model. Research evidence and accumulated experience have established the effectiveness of skills-based health education to successfully address prevalent health issues such as the use of alcohol, tobacco and other drugs; high-risk sexual behaviour; delinquent and criminal behaviour and bullying; self-esteem and positive social adjustment. Critical success factors for skills-based health education include a commitment from stakeholders, theoretical underpinnings, relevant content and developmental levels, participatory teaching methods, adequate timing and sequencing, multiple strategies in a coordinated approach, teacher training and professional development, and participation of students, parents, and the wider community. For going to scale with skills-based health education, the trend is toward a comprehensive approach, effective placement within the curriculum, using existing materials better, linking content to behavioural objectives and changes in health-related conditions, and consistent, ongoing professional development for teachers and support teams.

152

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

This review is based on a synthesis of information from the literature, field experiences, experts, and electronic questionnaires sent to international health and education agencies around the world.

Theoretical Base for Skills-Based Health Education A significant body of theory and research provides a rationale for the benefits and uses of skills-based health education. Child and adolescent development theories provide an understanding of the complex biological, social, and cognitive changes, gender awareness, and moral development that occurs from childhood through adolescence. For instance, late childhood and early adolescence (ages 6-15), when the ability for abstract thinking develops (Piaget, 1972), are critical moments for building skills and positive habits such as understanding consequences and solving problems though the validity of Piaget’s theoretical constructs has recently been challenged. The wider social context of early and middle adolescence provides opportunities to develop positive relationship with peers and other individuals outside the family. The theory of multiple intelligences (Gardner, 1993) proposes the existence of eight human intelligences that take into account the wide variety of human capacities: linguistic, logical/mathematical, musical, spatial, bodily/kinaesthetic, naturalist, interpersonal, and intrapersonal intelligences. A broader vision of human intelligence points toward using a variety of instructional methods to engage different learning styles and strengths. Social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) concludes that children learn to behave both through formal instruction and through observation. Children’s behaviour is reinforced or modified by the consequences of their actions and the responses of others to their behaviours. Therefore, teaching skills needs to replicate the natural processes by which children learn such as modelling, observation, and social interaction. Reinforcement is important in learning and shaping behaviour. Problem-behaviour theory (Jessor and Jessor, 1977) recognizes that adolescent behaviour is the product of complex interactions between people and their environment: the personality system (values, expectations, beliefs and attitudes), the perceived environment system (perceptions of friends’ and parents’ attitudes), and the behavioural system (acceptable and unacceptable behaviours). Behaviours are influenced by all three systems; therefore

Skills For Health: Skills-Based Health Education to Teach Life Skills

interventions need to address personal, environmental, and behavioural elements together. Social influence and social inoculation theory (Bandura, 1977; McGuire, 1964 and 1968) suggest that children and adolescents will come under pressure to engage in risk behaviour. Programmes based on these theories anticipate these pressures and teach young people both about the pressures and about ways to resist them before they are exposed. Usually, these programmes target peer resistance skills to very specific risks behaviours. Resilience theory explains the process by which some people are more likely to engage in health-promoting rather than health-compromising behaviours. There are internal and external factors that interact and allow people to overcome adversity. According to Bernard (1991), the characteristics that set resilient young people apart are social competence, problem-solving skills, autonomy, and a sense of purpose. The theory of Reasoned Action (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975) views an individual’s intention to perform behaviour as a combination of his attitude toward performing the behaviour and subjective normative beliefs about what others think he should do. The Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1988), an extension of the theory of Reasoned Action, includes the added concept of perceived behavioural control, which refers to the perceived ease or difficulty of performing the behaviour. The Health Belief Model (Rosenstock 1966; Rosenstock et al, 1988) recognizes that perceptions, rather than actual facts, are important to weighing benefits and barriers affecting health behaviour, along with the perceived susceptibility and perceived severity of the health threat or consequences. Thus, if a person perceives that the outcome of behaviour is positive, she will have a positive attitude toward performing that behaviour. The Stages of Change Theory or the Transtheoretical Model (Prochaska, 1979; Prochaska and DiClemente, 1982) describes stages that identify where a person is regarding her change of behaviour: pre-contemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, maintenance, or termination/relapse. It is important to understand the stages where students are in terms of their knowledge, attitudes, motivation, and experiences. Interventions that address a stage not relevant to students are unlikely to succeed. These theories provide a base for skills-based health education that addresses behaviours and conditions related to prevalent health and related social issues. Consequently, skills-based health education should be developmentally appropriate, address different learning styles, reinforce behaviour

153

154

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

through instruction and observation, address individual beliefs and the perceived environment, anticipate and prepare children for dealing with pressures, develop resilient personalities, and pay attention to a person’s attitude toward a behaviour and his or her stage of change. Skills-based health education should enable young people to apply knowledge and develop attitudes and life skills to make positive decisions and take actions to promote and protect one’s health and the health of others. Experts and practitioners agree that the term ‘life skills’ typically includes a combination of skills: communication and interpersonal skills, decisionmaking and critical thinking skills, coping and self-management skills (Figure 1). These skills are interrelated and may overlap. Skills are learned best when students have the opportunity to observe and actively practise them. Learning by doing is necessary. Studies of approaches to health education have shown that active participatory learning activities for students are the most effective method for developing knowledge, attitudes, and skills together so that students learn to make healthy choices (e.g., Wilson et al., 1992; Tobler et al., 2000). Participatory teaching methods for building skills and influencing attitudes include: class discussions, brainstorming, demonstration and guided practice, role plays, small groups, educational games and simulations, case studies, story telling, debates, skills practiced with others according to a particular context, audio and visual activities, decision mapping or problem trees.

Research Evidence of Effective Programs Research shows that skills-based health education promotes healthy lifestyles and reduces risk behaviours. A meta-analysis of 207 school-based drug prevention programmes in the United States concluded that ‘the most successful of the interactive programmes are the comprehensive life skillsbased education programmes that incorporate the refusal skills offered in the social influences programmes and add skills such as assertiveness, coping, communication skills, etc.’ (Tobler,1992). Meta-analyses by Kirby (1997, 1999, 2001) confirmed that active learning methods, along with other factors, were effective in reaching students and led to positive behavioural results. Studies in developing countries have also established the effectiveness of interactive and participatory teaching methods for skills-based health education (e.g., Wilson et al., 1992).

Skills For Health: Skills-Based Health Education to Teach Life Skills

Figure 1. Life skills for skills-based health education Communication and Interpersonal Skills

Decision-Making and Critical Thinking Skills

Coping and SelfManagement Skills

• Interpersonal Communication Skills - verbal/nonverbal communication - active listening - expressing feelings; giving feedback (without blaming ) and receiving feedback

• Decision-making/ Problem-solving Skills - information-gathering skills - evaluating future consequences of present actions for self and others - determining alternative solutions to problems - analysis skills regarding the influence of values and of attitudes about self and others on motivation

• Skills for Increasing Personal Confidence and Abilities to Assume Control, Take Responsibility, Make a Difference, or Bring About Change - building selfesteem/ confidence - creating selfawareness skills, including awareness of rights, influences, values, attitudes, rights, strengths, and weaknesses - setting goals - self-evaluation / self-assessment/ self-monitoring skills

• Negotiation/Refusal Skills - negotiation and conflict management - assertiveness skills - refusal skills • Empathy Building – ability to listen, understand another’s needs and circumstances, and express that understanding • Cooperation and Teamwork - expressing respect for others’ contributions and different styles - assessing one’s own abilities and contributing to the group • Advocacy Skills - influencing skills and persuasion - networking and motivation skills (from WHO, 2003: 9)

• Critical Thinking Skills - analysing peer and media influences - analysing attitudes, values, social norms, beliefs, and factors affecting them - identifying relevant information and sources of information

• Skills for Managing Feelings - managing anger - dealing with grief and anxiety - coping with loss, abuse, and trauma • Skills for Managing Stress - time management - positive thinking - relaxation techniques

155

156

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

Skills-based health education has been shown by research to: • Delay the onset age of using alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs (Griffin and Svendsen, 1992; Caplan et al., 1992; Werner 1991; Errecart et al., 1991; Hansen et al., 1988; Botvin et al., 1984, 1980) • Reduce high-risk sexual activity that can result in pregnancy or STI or HIV infections (Kirby, 1997 and 1994; WHO/GPA, 1994; Postrado and Nicholson, 1992; Zabin et al., 1986; Schinke et al., 1981) • Reduce the chances of young people engaging in delinquent behaviour (Elias, 1991), interpersonal violence (Tolan and Guerra, 1994), and criminal behaviour (Englander-Goldern et al, 1989) • Prevent peer rejection (Mize and Ladd, 1990) and bullying (Oleweus, 1990 & 1993) • Teach anger control (Deffenbacher et al., 1995; Deffenbacher et al., 1996; Feindler, et al 1986) • Promote positive social adjustment (Elias et al.,1991) and reduce emotional disorders (McConaughy et al.,1998) • Improve health-related behaviours and self-esteem (Young et al., 1997) • Improve academic performance (Elias et al.,1991) For instance, Australia, Chile, Norway, and Swaziland collaborated in a pilot study on the efficacy of the social influences approach in school-based alcohol education. The data showed that peer-led education appears to be effective in reducing alcohol use across a variety of settings and cultures (Perry and Grant, 1991). In Uganda, an HIV/AIDS prevention programme in primary schools emphasized improving access to information, peer interaction, and quality of performance of the existing school health education system. After two years of interventions, the percentage of students who stated they had been sexually active fell from 42.9% to 11.1%. Social interaction methods were found to be effective. Students in the intervention group tended to speak to peers and teachers more often about sexual matters. Reasons for abstaining from sex were associated with the rational decision-making model rather than with the punishment model (Shuey et al., 1999). In the United States, a study of nearly 6,000 students from 56 schools implemented a Life Skills Training (LST) programme, based on a personenvironment interactive model that assumes that there are multiple pathways

Skills For Health: Skills-Based Health Education to Teach Life Skills

to tobacco, alcohol, and drug use. The results of the three-year intervention study showed that LST had a significant impact on reducing cigarette, marijuana, and alcohol use. Results of the six-year follow-up indicated that the effects of the programme lasted until the end of the 12th grade (Botvin et al., 1995). Also in the United States, a two-year drug prevention curriculum called Project ALERT, designed for adolescents aged 11 to 14 from widely divergent backgrounds, has been highly effective. Project ALERT uses participatory activities and videos to help students establish non-drug norms, develop reasons not to use drugs, and resist pressures to use drugs. Skills-building activities utilise the modelling, practise, and feedback strategy. Guided classroom discussions and small group activities stimulate peer interaction and challenge students, while intensive role-playing encourages students to practise and master resistance skills. Parent-involved homework assignments extend the learning process. Longitudinal testing included 6,000 students from 30 junior high schools. Project ALERT was successful with high- and low-risk youth from urban, rural, and suburban communities and with youth from different socioeconomic levels and different ethnic backgrounds. The evaluation showed that Project ALERT reduced the initiation of marijuana and tobacco use by 30% and heavy smoking among experimenters by 50-60% (http://www.projectalert.best.org). Success factors Skills-based health education will be most effective in influencing behaviour when applied as part of a comprehensive, multi-strategy approach that delivers consistent messages over time. Strategies need to be tailored to discrete aspects and stages of behaviour. A narrow focus on skills-based health education is unlikely to sustain changed behaviour in the long term. More powerful and sustained outcomes tend to be achieved when skills-based health education is coordinated with policies, services, family and community partnerships, mass media and other strategies. The following critical success factors for school-based approaches have been identified by research: • Gaining commitment: Intense advocacy is required from the earliest planning stages to influence key leaders and to mobilise the community to place skills-based health education on its agenda. Advocating with accurate

157

158

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

and timely data can convince leaders and communities that prevention from an early age is important. It can also help ensure that programmes focus on the actual health needs, experience, motivation, and strengths of the target population, rather than on problems as perceived by others (McKee et al., 2000; Webb and Elliott, 2000). • Theoretical underpinnings: ‘Effective programmes are based upon theoretical approaches that have been demonstrated to be effective in influencing health-related risky behaviours’ (Kirby, 2001). Common elements exist across these theories, including the importance of personalising information and probability of risks, increasing motivation and readiness for change/action, understanding and influencing peers and social norms, enhancing personal skills and attitudes and ability to take action, and developing enabling environments through supportive policies and service delivery (McKee et al., 2000). • Relevant content: The information, attitudes, and skills that comprise the programme content should be selected for their relevance to specific healthrelated risk and protective behaviours. Effective programmes focus narrowly on a small number of specific behavioural goals and give a clear health content message by continually reinforcing a positive and healthpromoting stance on these behaviours (Kirby, 2001). General programmes and those that have attempted to cover a broad array of topics, values, and skills without linking them are generally not recommended where prevention of a specific risk behaviour is the goal (Kann et al., 1995). • Participatory methods: Effective programmes utilise a variety of participatory teaching methods, address social pressures and modelling of skills, and provide basic, accurate information. Effective participatory teaching methods actively involve the students and target particular health issues (Kirby, 2001). Programmes with a heavy emphasis on information can improve knowledge but are generally not effective in enhancing attitudes, skills, or actual behaviour (Wilson et al., 1992). However, effective programmes do need to provide some basic, accurate information that students can use to assess risks and avoid risky behaviours (Kirby, 2001). • Timing and sequence: Effective education programmes are intensive and begin prior to the onset of risk behaviours (Kirby and DiClemente, 1994). As a guide, at least eight hours of intensive training or at least 15 hours of classroom sessions per year will be required to provide adequate exposure and practice for students to acquire skills. Subsequent booster sessions are

Skills For Health: Skills-Based Health Education to Teach Life Skills

needed to sustain outcomes (Jemmott et al., 1992; Kirby and DiClemente, 1994; Wilson et al, 1992; Botvin, 2001). A planned and sequenced curriculum across primary and secondary school is recommended. Concepts should progress from simple to complex, with later lessons reinforcing and building on earlier learning. • Multi-strategy for maximum outcomes: Programmes need to be coordinated with other consistent strategies over time, such as policies, health and community services, community development, and media approaches. Because the determinants of behaviour are varied and complex, and the reach of any one programme (e.g., in schools) will be limited, a narrow focus is unlikely to yield sustained impact on behaviour in the long term. Only coordinated multi-strategy approaches can achieve the intensity of efforts that yields sustained behaviour change in the long term (UNESCO/UNFPA, 2001; South Africa Ministry of Health, 1998). • Teacher training and professional development: Teachers or peer leaders of effective programmes believe in the programme and receive adequate training. Training needs to give teachers and peers information about the programme as well as practice in using the teaching strategies in the curricula (Kirby, 2001). Research shows that teacher training for the implementation of a comprehensive secondary school health education curriculum positively affects teachers’ preparedness for teaching skillsbased health education and has positive effects both on curriculum implementation and on student outcomes (Kann et al., 1995; Ross et al., 1991). • Relevance: Programmes must be relevant to the reality and developmental levels of young people and must address risks that have the potential to cause most harm to the individual and society. Issues that attract media attention and public concern may not be the most prevalent or harmful. The programme goals, teaching methods, and materials need to be appropriate to the age, experience, and culture of children and young people and the communities they live in, and need to recognise what the learner already knows, feels, and can do (Kirby, 2001). • Participation: The involvement of students, parents, and the wider community should be encouraged in the programme at all stages. The participation of learners, parents, community workers, peer educators, and others in the design and implementation of school health programmes can help ensure that the needs and concerns of all these constituencies are met in culturally

159

160

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

and socially appropriate ways. Participants whose concerns are addressed are more likely to demonstrate commitment to and ownership of the programme, which in turn enhances sustainability and effectiveness (UNICEF, 2001; Jemmott et al., 1998). Going to scale ‘Going to scale’ means implementing interventions in an entire county or province or nation. It involves considering a variety of expansion models and agencies for reaching the greatest number of schools and students. Such considerations should be made from the beginning of the planning process, once the importance and feasibility of skills-based health education are understood. Smith and Colvin (2000) distinguish four major approaches for scaling up young adult programmes. (1) Planned Expansion means a steady process of expanding the number of sites and youth served by a particular programme once it has been pilot tested. (2) Association consists of expanding programme size and coverage through a network of organizations. (3) Grafting means adding a new initiative to an existing programme. (4) Explosion involves sudden implementation of a youth programme at a large scale. The following are recommended priority actions, based on the research presented earlier, for shifting efforts away from ineffective strategies toward approaches that have the focus and intensity which typify successful programmes. Away from education programmes developed and delivered in isolation from other health-related effort—toward a comprehensive approach. Comprehensive and effective school health programmes combine skills-based health education with supporting policies at the school and/or national level, a healthy school environment, related health services, and school-community partnerships. Focusing Resources on Effective School Health (FRESH), initiated by WHO, UNESCO, UNICEF, and the World Bank in 2000, is a framework for action that proposes four components as a starting point for developing an effective school health programme as part of broader efforts to design healthpromoting, child-friendly schools. If all schools were to implement these four components, there would be a significant, immediate benefit in the health of students and staff and a basis for future expansion. The aim is to focus on interventions that are feasible to put in place. These four FRESH components

Skills For Health: Skills-Based Health Education to Teach Life Skills

should be made available together, in all schools: (1) health-related school policies, (2) provision of safe water and sanitation as an essential step toward a healthy learning environment, (3) skills-based health education, and (4) schoolbased health and nutrition services. These components should be enforced by effective partnerships between teachers and health workers and between the education and health sectors; effective community partnerships; and pupil awareness and participation. Away from attempts to infuse health topics thinly across many subjects—toward effective placement in the curriculum. The preferred short-term approach addresses a limited number of high-priority health issues and teaches the necessary knowledge, attitudes, and skills together in one existing subject (sometimes called a carrier subject) in the context of other related issues and processes. Skills-based health education is placed in an existing subject designated for another purpose but relevant to the issues, such as civic/social studies or population education. The advantages of this approach include that teachers of the carrier subject are likely to link the relevance of the topic to other subjects; training of teachers is faster and less expensive; it is faster and costs less to integrate skills-based health education into materials of one principal subject than to infuse across all; and the carrier subject can be reinforced by infusion through other subjects. The drawbacks of this approach include that the selection of the carrier subject may be inappropriate, teachers may or may not be knowledgeable about or comfortable with health content, and health topics may receive less time than needed. Alternatives to placing skills-based health education within the curriculum include teaching it as a core health education subject. This is a good long term option that requires strong commitment over time. Skills-based health education (e.g., health education or family life education) is taught as a core subject for addressing important issues. This is more likely to command the attention of students and teachers than when presented as a sidebar to another course. It tends to have high teacher support owing to specific focus on health and teacher’s sense of professional responsibility to health education and life skills development. It also allows concepts to be sequenced smoothly from primary levels to secondary levels to reinforce previous learning experiences and to make links for new learning.

161

162

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

Another alternative is to infuse skills-based health education across subjects. The regular teacher integrates aspects of skills-based health education across many existing subjects. This approach is not recommended, as it does not yield good results on its own. Experience with infused skills-based health education in the United States has shown that when teachers teach general lifeskills programmes they often do not cover, in depth, the specific health issues that adolescents face. Evaluations of programmes in the United States, which emphasised generic decision-making skills, general communication and assertiveness, found no effect on adolescent health, especially sexual behaviour (Kann et al., 1995). A UNICEF-supported review of skills-based HIV/AIDS prevention programmes in East and South Africa (Gachuhi, 1999) found that infusion approaches tended not to have the expected impact, often because teachers were not sufficiently trained and did not implement the programme properly; and teachers overlooked sensitive issues and realistic situations that would allow them to personalize the risks that young people face. Not having a specific allocation in the timetable was also a barrier to effective implementation. A combination of approaches is yet another option. This is a very long term approach, combining the use of a carrier subject in the short term with a separate subject in the long term. Away from creating new teaching and learning materials from scratch—toward using existing materials better. It is often possible to work with existing resources rather than starting anew to create appropriate materials for skills-based health education. This should ensure better distribution and adaptation of the many quality materials that demonstrate research and evaluation evidence of effectiveness. The following issues might be considered for selecting existing materials: • Do the materials have goals that clearly describe health and related social issues to be influenced in a particular way? • Do the objectives clearly describe behaviours or conditions that can be influenced to significantly impact the goals? Are these relevant to our students’ needs? • Who is the target audience? • What time investment is suggested (number and length of sessions)?

Skills For Health: Skills-Based Health Education to Teach Life Skills

• Are the materials suitable for the available settings? • Is the language used most appropriate for the target group/users of the materials? • Have the materials been evaluated, and if so, with what audience and setting? • What is the evidence of effectiveness? • What is the similarity between the ‘proven programme’ and the intended audience and cultural setting? • How well is knowledge relevant to the health issue addressed? Is the information clear? Does it provide accurate, up-to-date knowledge on the health issue? • How relevant are the attitudes to the health issue addressed? • How relevant are skills to the behaviours that are to be influenced? • How appropriate are the methods for achieving the educational objectives (e.g., increasing knowledge, fostering health-supporting attitudes, building skills)? • Are the materials gender-sensitive in content, methods, and language? • Are the materials relevant to student needs and interests? • How easy will it be for teachers, parents, and students to adapt and implement the materials? • Do the materials include sufficient learning experiences to achieve the objectives? Away from generic life skills programmes that are not attached to specific objectives and goals—toward linking content to behavioural objectives and changes in health-related conditions. Applying skills-based teaching and learning methods for the development of knowledge, attitudes and skills is needed to achieve objectives in terms of behaviours and conditions that will lead to health and correlated social goals. Programmes aimed at helping young people to develop life skills without a particular context are less effective in achieving specific behavioural outcomes. It is critical that programme planners set objectives and select content on the basis of what is most relevant to influencing the behaviours and conditions that are associated with priority health issues. The central question is ‘what’ behaviours or conditions must be sustained or changed to influence the health issues. The situation assessment should reveal

163

164

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

the issues most relevant to the health and development of young people who will participate in the programme. Then, what knowledge, attitudes, and skills will be the most useful to address, given the behaviours and conditions to be changed? The answers to these ‘whats’ are then used to develop programme objectives. Such objectives are required for clearly delineating the programme content, including knowledge, attitudes, and skills that are important to achieve the behavioural and conditional objectives. The question of ‘when’ relates to the needs and developmental abilities of young people. These vary with age. Programmes need to take these factors into account. This is commonly referred to as ‘developmentally appropriate programming.’ For example, concepts in school curricula should be sequenced smoothly from primary levels to secondary levels to reinforce previous learning experiences and make links for new learning; this process is sometimes referred to as a ‘spiral curriculum.’ For sensitive issues such as HIV/AIDS, sexual and reproductive health, education should begin as interest begins to increase but before the target group has become involved in the risk behaviours. Away from delivery by unprepared adults—toward consistent, ongoing professional development for teachers and support teams. Various individuals involved in skills-based health education must be trained to ensure successful implementation of such programmes. Trained educators are more likely than those who are not specifically trained in this area to implement programmes as intended, that is, to teach all of the required content and to use effective, high-quality teaching and learning methods (Kann et al., 1995). Skills-based health education teachers must possess a mix of professional and personal qualities. Some individuals bring these qualities to the job; others must receive training to acquire them. When properly trained, students themselves (peers), community agency workers, guidance officers or counsellors, social workers, and psychologists or other health care providers, as well as teachers, can facilitate skills-based health education. The best programme facilitators are role models for healthy behaviours. They are credible and respected, skilled and competent, able to access resources and leadership and institutional support. In addition, they have the ability to play different roles; the ability to act as a guide; the ability to respect the adolescent and his or her self-determination (Tobler, 1992); warmth,

Skills For Health: Skills-Based Health Education to Teach Life Skills

supportiveness and enthusiasm (Ladd and Mize, 1983); ability to deal with sensitive issues; appropriate personal and professional attitudes and practices; accurate knowledge of, and adequate comfort with, the range of issues being addressed. Access to good quality training and support is essential to the development of these characteristics. Teachers and other facilitators ideally should receive quality training in both pre-service and in-service contexts. Training needs to expose teachers to, and allow them to gain experience in, participatory teaching and learning methods, with administrative support at the school level, and ongoing support from experts to foster and sustain participatory teaching and learning methods. Training for skills-based health education should mirror the teaching and learning principles of the programmes that are to be implemented. It should incorporate active teaching and learning methodologies that take account of what is known about adult learning styles. In reality, teachers in many countries receive neither quality pre-service training nor ongoing in-service training, and there may be little support for addressing sensitive and complex topics that require specific skills. Developers of Teenage Health Teaching Modules (THTM), a skills-based health education curriculum in the United States, effectively trained programme providers in establishing a programme environment in which open communication and positive peer interaction are valued and constructive problem solving occurs; using participatory teaching strategies; modelling skills and applying them to particular behaviours, including how to give encouragement and praise to reinforce social norms; teaching complex social skills; providing resources for health information and referral; and dealing with sensitive issues (Blaber, 1999). A study involving 85 schools found that pre-implementation training in THTM positively affected teachers’ preparedness to teach THTM and student outcomes. Trained teachers implemented the curriculum with a significantly higher degree of fidelity than untrained teachers. Teacher training also had positive effects on student outcomes. Students’ knowledge and attitude scores were significantly higher for classes taught by trained teachers than by untrained teachers. At the senior high school level, trained teachers also accounted for curbing self-reported use of illegal drugs (Ross et al., 1991).

165

166

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

Conclusion Schools have an important role to play in equipping children with the knowledge, attitudes and skills they need to protect their health. Skills-based health education, when planned and implemented based on research-based strategies, can make a significant contribution to the health and learning potential of young people. The commitment to skills-based health education as an important foundation for every child is shared across the FRESH partners who agree that skills-based health education is an essential component of a cost-effective school health programme.

Acknowledgements This chapter is based on Skills for Health: Skills-based Health Education including Life Skills: An Important Component of a Child-Friendly/Health-Promoting School. WHO Information Series on School Health; Document 9. (2003) Geneva: World Health Organization, developed with the technical support of Carmen Aldinger and Cheryl Vince Whitman of Health and Human Development Programs at Education Development Center, Amaya Gillespie of the Education Section at UNICEF, and Jack T. Jones of the Department of Noncommunicable Disease Prevention and Health Promotion at WHO/HQ, and co-published by UNICEF, WHO, Education Development Center, Education International, UNESCO, UNFPA, World Bank, and Partnership for Child Development.

References Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, Personality and Behavior. Chicago: Dorsey Press. Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bernard, B. (1991). Fostering Resilience in Kids: Protective factors in the family, school and community. Portland, OR: Western Centre Drug-Free Schools and Communities. Blaber, C. (1999). Teenage Health Teaching Modules: Lessons learned and challenges. Presented at a meeting of Life Skills Experts at the Pan-American Health Organization (PAHO), Washington, DC. Botvin, G. J., Eng., A., and Williams, C. L. (1980). ‘Preventing the onset of cigarette smoking through Life Skills Training.’ Preventive Medicine, 9: 135-143.

Skills For Health: Skills-Based Health Education to Teach Life Skills

Botvin, G. J., Baker, E., Botvin, E. M., Filazzola, A. D., and Millman, R. B. (1984). ’Alcohol abuse prevention through the development of personal and social competence: A pilot study’. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 45: 550-552. Botvin, G.J., Baker, E., Dusenbury, L., Botvin, E.M. and Diaz, T. (1995) ‘Long-term follow-up results of a randomized drug abuse prevention trial in a White middle-class population.’ Journal of the American Medical Association, 273, 14: 1106-1112. Botvin, G. J. (2001). Life skills training: fact sheet. Available on-line at (accessed 17 January 2005): http://www.lifeskillstraining.com Caplan, M., Weissberg, R., Grober, J., Sivo, P., Grady, K. and Jacoby, C. (1992). ‘Social competence promotion with inner-city and suburban young adolescents: Effects on social adjustment and alcohol use.’ Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 1: 56-63. Deffenbacher, J., Oetting, E., Huff, M., and Thwaites, G. (1995). ‘Fifteen-month follow-up of social skills and cognitive-relaxation approaches to general anger reduction.’ Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42, 3: 400-405. Deffenbacher, J, Lynch, R., Oetting, E. and Kemper, C. (1996). ‘Anger reduction in early adolescents.’ Journal of Counselling Psychology, 41, 2: 149-157. Elias, M. J. (1991). ‘An action research approach to evaluating the impact of a social decision-making and problem-solving curriculum for preventing behavior and academic dysfunction in children.’ Evaluation and Program Planning, 14, 4. Elias, M., Gara, M., Schulyer, T., Brandon-Muller, L. and Sayette, M. (1991) ‘The promotion of social competence.’ American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 6, 13: 409-417. Englander-Goldern, P., Jackson, J., Crane, K., Schwarzkopf, A. and Lyle, P. (1989). ‘Communication skills and self-esteem in prevention of destructive behaviors.’ Adolescence, 14: 481-501. Errecart, M.T., Walberg, H.J., Ross, J.G., Gold, R.S., Fiedler, J.L. and Kolbe, L.J. (1991). ‘Effectiveness of teenage health teaching modules.’ Journal of School Health, 61, 1: 26–30. Feindler, E., Ecton, R., Kingsley, D. and Dubey, D. (1986). ‘Group anger-control training for institutional psychiatric male adolescents.’ Behaviour Therapy, 17: 109-123. Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Gachuhi, D. (1999). The impact of HIV/AIDS on education systems in the Eastern and Southern Africa Region and the response of education systems to HIV/AIDS: Life skills programmes. Prepared for UNICEF ESARO. Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of Mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

167

168

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

Griffin, T. and Svendsen, R. (1992). Promising Prevention Strategies for the 90s. Piscataway, N.J: New Jersey Alcohol/Drug Abuse Resource Centre and Clearinghouse. Hansen, W., Johnson, C., Flay, B., Graham, J. and Sobel, J. (1988). ‘Affective and social influence approaches to the prevention of multiple substance abuse among seventh grade students: Results from Project SMART.’ Preventive Medicine, 17: 135-188. Jessor, R. and Jessor, S. (1977). Problem Behavior and Psychosocial Development: A longitudinal study of youth. New York: Academic Press. Jemmott, J.B., Jemmott, L.S. and Fong, G.T. (1992). ’Reductions in HIV risk-associated sexual behaviors among black make adolescents: Effects of an AIDS prevention intervention’. American Journal of Public Health, 82, 3: 372-7. Jemmott, J., Jemmott, L. and Fong, G. (1998). Abstinence and safer sex HIV risk-reduction interventions for African Amercian Adolescents: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA, 279, 19: 1529-1536. Kann L., Collins, J. L., Paterman, B. C., Small, M. L., Ross, J. G. and Kolbe, L. J. (1995). ‘The School Health Policies and Programs Study (SHPPS): Rationale for a nationwide status report on school health.’ Journal of School Health, 65: 291-294. Kirby, D. (1994). ‘School-based programs to reduce sexual risk-taking behaviors: Sexuality and HIV/AIDS education, health clinics, and condom availability programs.’ Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Public Health Association, San Diego, Calif., 31 October 1994. Kirby, D. (1997). No Easy Answers: Research findings on programs to reduce teen pregnancy. Washington, D.C.: National Campaign to Reduce Teen Pregnancy. Kirby D. (1999). Looking for Reasons Why: The antecedents of adolescent sexual risktaking, pregnancy, and childbearing. Washington DC. National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. Kirby, D. (2001). Emerging Answers: New research findings on programs to reduce teen pregnancy. Washington, DC: National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. Summary available on-line at: http://www.teenpregnancy.org/resources/data/pdf/emeranswsum.pdf Accessed 17 January 2005. Kirby, D. and DiClemente, R. J. (1994). ‘School-based interventions to prevent unprotected sex and HIV among adolescents.’ In R. J. DiClemente and J. L. Peterson (Eds.), Preventing AIDS: Theories and methods of behavioral intentions, pp. 7–139. New York: Plenum Press. Ladd, G. and Mize, J. (1983). ‘A cognitive-social learning model of social skill training.’ Psychological Review, 90, 127-157.

Skills For Health: Skills-Based Health Education to Teach Life Skills

McConaughy, S. H., Kay, P. J. and Fitzgerald, M. (1998). ‘Preventing SED through parentteacher action research and social skills instruction: First-year outcomes.’ Journal of Emotional and Behavioural Disorders, 6, 2. McGuire, W (1964). ‘Inducing resistance to persuasion: Some contemporary approaches.’ In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experiential Social Psychology. New York: Academic Press. McGuire, W. J. (1968). ‘The nature of attitudes and attitude change.’ In: G. Lindzey and E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. McKee, N., Manocontour, E., Saik Yoon, C. and Carnegie, R (Eds). (2000). Involving People, Evolving Behaviour. Penang, Malaysia: UNICEF. Mize, J. and Ladd, G. (1990). ‘A cognitive-social learning approach to social skill training with low-status preschool children.’ Developmental Psychology, 26, 3: 388-397. Olweus, D. (1990). ‘A national campaign in Norway to reduce the prevalence of bullying behaviour’ Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research on Adolescence, Atlanta, 10–12 December. Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at School: What we know and what we can do. London: Blackwell. Perry, C.L. and Grant, M. (1991). ‘A cross-cultural pilot study on alcohol education and young people.’ World Health Statistics Quarterly – Rapport Trimestriel de Statistiques Sanitaires Mondiales, 44: 70-73. Piaget, J. (1972). ‘Intellectual evolution from adolescence to adulthood.’ Human Development, 15: 1-12. Postrado, L. T. and Nicholson, H. J. (1992). ‘Effectiveness in delaying the initiation of sexual intercourse of girls aged 12–14: Two Components of the Girls Incorporated Preventing Adolescent Pregnancy Program.’ Youth and Society, 23, 3. Prochaska, J. O. (1979). Systems of Psychotherapy: A transtheoretical analysis. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press. Prochaska, J. O. and DiClemente, C. C. (1982). ‘Transtheoretical therapy: Toward a more integrative model of change.’ Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practice, 19, 3: 276-288. Rosenstock, I. M. (1966). ‘Why people use health services.’ Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, 44: 94-124. Rosenstock, I. M., Strecher, V. J. and Becker, M. H. (1988). ‘Social learning theory and the health belief model.’ Health Education Quarterly, 15, 2: 175-183. Ross, J. G., Luepker, R. V., Nelson, G. D., Saavedra, P. and Hubbard, B. M. (1991). ’Teenage health teaching modules: Impact of teacher training on implementation and student outcomes.’ Journal of School Health, 61, 1: 31-34.

169

170

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

Schinke, S., Blythe, B. and Gilchrest, L. D. (1981). ‘Cognitive-behavioral prevention of adolescent pregnancy.’ Journal of Counselling Psychology, 28: 451-454. Shuey, D. A., Babishangire, B. B., Omiat, S. and Bagarukayo, H. (1999). ‘Increased sexual abstinence among in-school adolescents as a result of school health education in Soroti district, Uganda.’ Health Education Research: Theory and Practice, 14: 411-419. Smith, J. and Colven, C. (2000). Getting to Scale in Young Adult Reproductive Health Programs. Focus tool series 3. Washington, DC: FOCUS on Young Adults. Available on-line at (all accessed 17 January 2005): http://pf.convio.com/pf/pubs/focus/guidesandtools/PDF/Scalingtext1.PDF http://pf.convio.com/pf/pubs/focus/guidesandtools/PDF/Scalingtext2a.PDF http://pf.convio.com/pf/pubs/focus/guidesandtools/PDF/Scalingtext2b.PDF South Africa Ministry of Health and Ministry of Education. (1998). Life skills program project report 1997/98. Cape Town: South Africa Ministry of Health. Tobler, N. (1992) ‘Drug prevention programs can work: Research findings.’ Journal of Addictive Diseases. 11, 3. Tobler, N. S., Roona, M. R., Ochshorn, P., Marshall, D. G., Streke, A. V. and Stackpole, K. M. (2000). ‘School-based adolescent drug prevention programs: 1998 meta-analysis.’ Journal of Primary Prevention, 20, 4: 275-336. Tolan, P. and Guerra, N. (1994). What Works in Reducing Adolescent Violence: An empirical review of the field. Boulder, Colo.: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. UNESCO/UNFPA. (2001). Communication and Advocacy Strategies: Adolescent reproductive and sexual health. Booklet 3, lessons learned and guidelines. Bangkok, Thailand: UNESCO, UNFPA. UNICEF. (2001). The Participation Rights of Adolescents: A strategic approach. Prepared by R. Rajani. Commissioned paper for UNICEF. Available from UNICEF, or at (accessed 17 January 2005): http://www.unicef.org/adolescence/Participation_Rights_of_ Adolescents_Rajani_2001.pdf Werner, M. (1991). Adolescent Substance Abuse: Risk factors and prevention strategies. Maternal and child health technical information bulletin. Washington, D.C: National Center for Education in Maternal and Child Health. World Health Organization/Global Programme on AIDS. (1994). School Health Education to Prevent AIDS and STD: A resource package for curriculum planners. Geneva: World Health Organisation/Global Programme on AIDS World Health Organization (2003). Skills for Health: Skills-based Health Education including Life Skills: An Important Component of a Child-Friendly/Health-Promoting School. WHO Information Series on School Health; Document 9. Geneva: World Health Organization.

Skills For Health: Skills-Based Health Education to Teach Life Skills

Webb, D. and Elliott, L., in collaboration with UK Department for International Development and UNAIDS. (2000). Learning to Live: Monitoring and evaluating HIV/AIDS programmes for young people. Save the Children Fund. Wilson, D., Mparadzi, A. and Lavelle, E. (1992). ‘An experimental comparison of two AIDS prevention interventions among young Zimbabweans.’ Journal of Social Psychology, 132, 3: 415-417. Young, M., Kelley, R. and Denny, G. (1997). ‘Evaluation of selected life-skills modules from the contemporary health series with students in grade 6.’ Perceptual and Motor Skills. 84: 811-818. Zabin, L. S., Hirsch, M. B., Smith, E. A., Streett, R. and Hardy, J. B. (1986). ‘Evaluation of a pregnancy prevention programme for urban teenagers.’ Family Planning Perspectives, 18: 119–126.

171

173

9

Participation and Learning about Health Venka Simovska

Introduction The core principles underlying the health promoting schools initiative as discussed and adopted at the first two conferences of the European Network of Health Promoting Schools (ENHPS) clearly indicate a move away from the traditional, disease-focused approach to health education and health promotion towards an empowering, social model (WHO, 1997; 2002). The health promoting schools approach brings together the strategic guidelines outlined in the Ottawa Charter (WHO, 1986) and the principles stated in more recent WHO documents, for instance Health 21 – the Health for All policy for the WHO European Region, which sets out targets for the 21st century. Health 21 draws on the values of health for all, including for example health as a fundamental human right, equity in health, and participation of individuals, groups, institutions and organizations in health promotion. One of the key strategies that this policy document emphasises is a participatory health development process that involves relevant partners for health, at all levels – home, school and workplace, local community and country – and that promotes joint decision making, implementation and accountability (WHO, 1999). Accordingly, health promotion in schools is construed as a social process of individual and collective empowerment. A health promoting school is defined as an educational setting that attempts to constantly develop its capacity for healthy learning, working and living (WHO, 1993). Health is interpreted positively and holistically, encompassing the living conditions related to health as well as dimensions of physical, social, emotional, spiritual and mental wellbeing. The development of an individual’s skills, self-determination and agency

174

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

with regard to health matters is always considered within a given context, in connection to the surrounding living conditions. The whole school environment is viewed as an important arena for promotion of health and for learning about health. Interpreted in this way, the health promoting schools approach inevitably brings to the fore the issue of meaningful student involvement in teaching and learning processes. Moreover, ‘student participation’ has become one of the trendy, captivating terms within the ENHPS, holding the central position in portraying the health promoting schools initiative. In reality, however, the ideology underpinning the health promoting schools initiative is to a large degree influenced by elements of professional power and the need for public accountability (Denman et al. 2002); the concept of health promoting schools has been interpreted differently in different cultural, geographical and educational contexts thus obtaining a wide range of, sometimes contradictory, meanings. A number of models of health promoting school have emerged over the previous years reflecting different educational priorities, ideologies, needs and systems of meaning within the national networks (Jensen and Simovska, 2002). One of the significant challenges to traditional models which are focused on behaviour modification is characterised by the distinction between ‘moralistic’ and ‘democratic’ health education and promotion conceptualized within the Danish Network of Health Promoting Schools (Jensen, 1997). The main aim of democratic health promoting schools is construed as development of students’ action competence, that is, the ability to act and bring about positive change with regard to health (Jensen, 1997; 2000; 2004). From this viewpoint participation is interpreted as a transformative process focused on making a difference, as opposed to conforming to the status quo. One of the key tasks of a democratic health-promoting school is providing an appropriate space for the students to participate actively in relevant, rather than trivial aspects of decision-making processes at school (Simovska, 2004). Moreover, it is considered essential that a health promoting school should ensure resources and opportunities for students to develop, enhance, exercise and exert their competences to act as qualified agents in democratic environments. This presupposes fostering students’ self-awareness, critical thinking, decision-making and collaboration skills, connecting students among themselves and with the school and empowering both students and school communities to deal with health determinants and other health matters that concern them (Simovska, 2000).

Participation and Learning about Health

Thus, the democratic approach to health promoting schools stimulated the introduction of fundamental changes to school approaches to teaching and learning as well as school management, which move away from the top-down hierarchical school structures toward more participatory and empowering systems on all levels. Consequently, as will be discussed in what follows, this perspective points to controversial processes of challenging the traditional power imbalances in schools and also implies a different view on the nature of learning.

Participation, Democracy and Learning Over the last few decades, a number of authors (e.g. Arnstein, 1969; Brager and Sprecht, 1973; Cornwall, 1996) have developed useful typologies of participation based primarily on distinguishing between different degrees of shared power and influence. These models do not address the participation of children and young people directly, which is quite specific even though originating from the same theoretical principles. Hart uses the metaphor of a ladder to highlight the distinction between several types of children’s ‘non-participation’ on the one hand and different levels of ‘real participation’ on the other (1992; 1997). The ladder metaphor has been criticised for suggesting ‘lower’ and ‘higher’ levels of participation, with the higher often valued more positively than the lower. The danger of this is that participation becomes ritualised, with higher levels imposed as an imperative, creating a case for what some critics have called ‘participation as tyranny’ (Cooke and Kothari, 2001: 4). Hart (1997) emphasises, however, that using this conceptualisation does not mean that it is always necessary for children to participate at the highest possible level. The most important principle in determining the level of participation, according to Hart, should be the students’ choice; ideally, children and young people should be able to determine how much they would like to be involved while conditions should be provided to optimise the opportunity for every child to participate at the highest level of his or her competence, interest and motivation. Yet, research has demonstrated that a number of determinants such as the overall societal and school culture, the specific issues that are being dealt with in teaching, as well as the skills and competences of teachers influence the level and quality of student participation in practice (Johnson et al., 1998; Simovska and Jensen, 2003).

175

176

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

When we think about participation from a variety of perspectives in learning theory the meaning of it varies substantially. Conventional learning theories typically attempt to explain the ways individuals learn and to discuss the implications of these explanations by considering teaching strategies that would foster an isolated individual’s learning. In contrast, the socio-cultural theory of learning and development inspired by the ideas of Vygotsky, among others, interprets learning as a profoundly social process, linked closely to the processes of psychological development. In Vygotsky’s view (1978; 1987), the problems of teaching and learning cannot be successfully analysed without exploring the relation between learning and development first. He suggests a radically new approach based on the concept of zone of proximal development, defined as: …the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers (Vygotsky, 1978: 86). In other words, as the developmental processes take place ‘behind’ the learning process; this difference results in the zone of proximal development. This means, according to Vygotsky (1987), that any ‘good’ learning leads the development. One of the crucial characteristics of learning is that it stimulates a number of developmental processes within an individual, which can operate only in the context of interaction of the individual with the adults or peers in her or his surrounding. Then, through the processes of internalisation these developmental processes become part of the individual’s independent development. Internalisation refers to a process of internal reconstruction of an external operation. The concept of zone of proximal development points to a change of focus in learning theories, involving deeper consideration of the interaction between cognition, context and practice. The change in focus also means that the unit of analysis is not the individual but the dynamic integration of the individual and the social environment. In her interpretation of Vygotsky’s theory, Rogoff (1990; 1995) extends the concept of zone of proximal development by emphasising the interrelatedness of the roles of children and adults and pointing to the active role of children as participants in their own learning and development. Instead of internalisation the notion of ‘appropriation’ is suggested to describe the mechanisms through

Participation and Learning about Health

which learning takes place. Appropriation is determined as a process in which individuals participating in an action change so they can more easily handle further actions and interactions. Internalisation means that children make external things internal. In contrast, appropriation is participatory; children ‘must already be functioning in the social activity in order to be making their contributions’ (Rogoff, 1993: 139) and that is how they develop insights, critical skills and competence. Building on Vygotsky, Rogoff suggests that processes of learning and development should draw attention to how personal efforts, interpersonal relationships and culturally structured activities constitute each other. In other words, it would not be sufficient to focus on individual learning or competence development without paying attention to the interpersonal relationships as socio-cultural activities in which learning and development are taking place. It is through the process of guided participation that the link is provided between previous experience and competences and the skills and information needed to solve new problems (Rogoff, 1995; Rogoff et al., 2001). Intersubjectivity and participation-in-meaning are therefore considered to be core elements of participatory learning. These two concepts serve to emphasise that creation of meaning and understanding is relational, that is, it happens between people. Both the concepts of intersubjectivity and participation-in-meaning refer to a process in which participants reach an agreement and common, dialogical understanding of actions with which they are faced. Intersubjectivity is, in a way, a shared meaning that persons involved in interaction create on the basis of a joint focus of attention, shared visions and other assumptions that shape their common communication ground. In this perspective, knowledge is interpreted as a social process of knowledge construction rather than an object for students to internalise. Meaning and knowing are negotiated and dynamically created and re-created through participation in socially organized activities. Thus, authentic student participation and social guidance that builds on students’ perspectives in teaching and learning processes are considered essential dimensions of personally meaningful learning. The socio-cultural perspective inevitably puts forward the importance of interpersonal relationships in facilitating active student participation in teaching and learning processes. Particularly important seem to be the relationships with teachers and other adults or ‘more experienced participants’, as they play the vital role of supporting and guiding learning in the zone of

177

178

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

proximal development. Experience needs to be related before it can be conceptualized. Therefore, the relationships form a kind of developmental infrastructure on which school experiences build (Pianta, 1999). Teachers need to be aware of educationally critical aspects of students’ experience and build participatory situations that are slightly beyond their current competence. In other words, relationships constitute part of a specific quality of the zone of proximal development, which could be more or less conducive to encouraging students’ learning and enhancing their competences. It is essential that through authentic participation and also through ‘intent participation’, i.e. listening-in in anticipation of participation (Rogoff et al., 2003), students attempt to create meaning for the actions in which they take part. The process of creating meaning takes place while they actively search for common ground and understanding with the other participants. Thus, in the context of the health promoting schools one can argue that participation in dialogue, changes of perspective, reflecting on and constructing shared meanings about health problems and strategies for solutions, are equally important in the development of action competence as is undertaking specific actions.

Different Modes of Student Participation Inspired by Hart’s categorization of participation mentioned earlier and also by the socio-cultural perspective on learning as an underlying theoretical framework, two distinctive qualities of student participation are identified by drawing on the experience from the Macedonian Network of Health Promoting Schools and its collaboration with other networks of the ENHPS: token and genuine student participation. Unlike Hart’s ladder which sets up more procedural democratic criteria for involving children and distinguishing between different degrees of participation, this model focuses on the quality of participation apart from its presumed position on the ladder (the participation part). It deals with values, often implicitly embedded in socially organized participatory activities involving students at school and repeatedly neglected when researching the processes of teaching and learning – e.g. self-determination, democracy, diversity and equity (Simovska, 2000; 2004; 2005). As presented in Table 1, three main points serve to differentiate between token and genuine student participation: focus, outcomes and target of change.

Participation and Learning about Health

Table 1. Three points of differentiation between token and genuine student participation

Token Participation

Genuine Participation

Focus health information

processes of knowing

consequences

personal meanings

effects

social construction Outcomes

convergent

divergent

(ready-made lifestyles, healthy behaviour)

(critical consciousness, responsible freedom)

Target of change individuals

individuals-in-context

The first point of differentiation is the focus of the health promoting and learning activities in which students participate. Token participation would have its focus on acquisition of content that has to be learned, accepted and utilised. In the context of the health promoting schools, such content involves the traditional factual knowledge relating to health and the hazardous effects of different behaviour styles. Students do not have much influence on the knowledge with which they are supposed to work. However, they ‘participate’ in an interactive methodology that helps them acquire that knowledge. Genuine participation, on the other hand, focuses on knowledge building through reflection on meanings and on different ways of constructing knowledge within the health domain. Factual information is addressed, too, but it is the processes that lead to legitimation of information and its integration in a system of economic, historical and ideological aspects that are considered essential. Students are involved in processes of knowing, which are social and relational in their essence. These processes take place in the context of both asymmetric relationships of students with teachers as more experienced dialogue partners and symmetric relationships with more or less equally skilled

179

180

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

peers. In contrast to the views of participation as merely a motivational tool the experience from the health promoting schools that rely on genuine student participation shows that it is possible – and in the long run more conducive to health – to build on the view of learning as a process primarily seeking and constructing meaning, as seeing something from different perspectives (Marton and Booth, 1997) and changing as individuals while initiating changes in the surrounding environment. The development of competence to act intentionally requires not only knowledge but also the ability to regulate one’s own cognition and action in a way that identifies, makes use of, and improves the potentials and possibilities of the environment. The second point of differentiation between token and genuine student participation is in the expected outcomes of the health promoting school activities in which students are engaged. The outcomes of token participation could be defined as acceptance of pre-existing healthy lifestyles that correlate with facts describing what is healthy and what is not. The learning outcomes are closed or convergent: rules and facts regarding health are fixed, prescribed by experts on the basis of scientific evidence, without much room for personal choice and determination. Student participation within these frames means active practice in making ‘healthy’ decisions and developing assertive and other personal and social skills in order to avoid health ‘risks’ and possible negative pressure by classmates, peers or the media. In terms of genuine participation, in contrast, the aims would be to encourage students’ autonomy, critical consciousness with regard to health matters and their potential to deal with the complexities of their own lives and the world in active, creative and socially responsible ways. Consequently, the expected outcomes would be open and divergent, depending on the ideas and interests of individuals or groups of students, as well as on the constellation of power relations, needs and possibilities existing in a particular school environment at a given moment. In other words, the expected outcomes of genuine participation would be the students’ lived identities as active agents in health domains, based on negotiated, social and imaginative learning experiences. The motivation and competence to engage in further learning is also an important dimension of the expected outcomes. The third point of differentiation between the two forms of participation is the target of change of the participatory activities. Token participation tends to target individuals with a view to changing their lifestyles, while within genuine participation the target would be individuals-in-context. In the latter, individual behaviour is closely intertwined with interpersonal involvements and

Participation and Learning about Health

organizational structures. The point of departure is that students’ competences are not only their own property. The development of skills and competencies includes processes that occur at three levels – personal, interpersonal and cultural. Students are as competent as their context (schools for instance) affords them the opportunity to be (Pianta, 1999) and, at the same time, they are able to influence these circumstances and to initiate positive change. Therefore, it could be argued that if students have opportunities to participate actively in improving their surroundings as part of their education and thus be agents of their own learning, they are enabled to assume responsibilities for their own lives, to deal with change, and also to participate competently in the social web. Arguably, health promoting schools that are based on genuine participation hold the potential to achieve a better balance between the individualistic and structural (social) approaches to health promotion in schools (Simovska, 2000). Health and health promotion are seen holistically without neglecting either the environment and health conditions or the individual and the importance of personal meanings. In the spirit of Vygotsky (in Holzman, 1997), a student participating genuinely in school health promoting processes is looked upon not as an individual but rather as a ‘person-and-environment’, where the school and the environment are not abstractions but real entities consisting of real people. Consequently, indicators for successful learning about health would not be only what a student knows, but rather what she or he wants to and can do alone or in collaboration with others. Inherent to the conceptualization of teaching and learning through genuine participation are the issues of power and ownership. Genuine student participation allows for student ownership of the learning process. Ownership presupposes that the potential for effective individual and group action is embedded in the knowledge that is acquired. In contrast to traditional school knowledge, ‘owned knowledge’ positions its possessor as an acting subject, able to employ his or her knowledge in a dynamic way (Paechter, 2001) by visualising different alternatives and dealing with complexities of change.

A Case Study: ‘Young Minds’ Learning about Health through Participation and Action The case draws on the international, web-based educational project titled ‘Young Minds – exploring links between youth, culture and the use of alcohol’. In

181

182

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

‘Young Minds’, students from Danish, the Czech Republic, Macedonian and Swedish ENHP schools explored links between youth, culture and alcohol consumption through cross-cultural collaboration and the use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT). Box 1 below summarises the main underpinning principles or criteria for the Young Minds project. The participants in the project were primary and lower secondary school students in the age range 12 – 16. Approximately 100 students in four classes in the four countries mentioned above as well as their respective teachers were directly involved in the project. Students presented their investigation results, ideas and opinions relating to the area of alcohol and young people on the project’s website (Young Minds 2000-2001). An important feature of the project was its presentation by student representatives from all four classes at the WHO Ministerial conference ‘Young People and Alcohol’ that took place in Stockholm. This presentation was construed as a special kind of student action contributing to the project’s main aims. The action-focus in the project was designed according the conceptualization

Box 1. Underpinning principles for ‘Young Minds’

•

Schools’ projects are targeted towards action and change. Students’ visions and ideas play crucial roles with regard to which changes and actions have to be carried out. The IVAC (investigation-vision-actionchange) approach (Jensen, 1997) is employed as the main framework for structuring the school projects.

•

Students in the participating classes are actively involved in deciding about specific aspects within the area of alcohol with which they wish to work

•

Teachers have the role of responsible facilitators with the tasks of inspiring, supporting and challenging the students

•

The project emphasises the cross-cultural collaboration by using the benefits of involving four classes in four European countries working on the same overall issue at the same time

•

The project explores possibilities of and barriers to integrating ICT within participatory and action-oriented health education

Participation and Learning about Health

of action suggested by Jensen and Schnack (1994): delineating characteristics of an action in relation to other kinds of behaviour are its intentionality and directedness towards bringing about positive changes in regard to the problem in question. With their action at the conference ‘Young Minds’ students, supported by their teachers and the projects’ consultants participated actively in voicing young people’s opinions about alcohol consumption and problems related to it, with an aim to influencing the ideas and opinions of the conference participants as well as alcohol policies that concern young people. The material used in this analysis forms part of a wider body of data, collected for the evaluation study researching the students’ work with the issue of alcohol as well as the participating teachers’ and students’ perspectives on the main aspects of the educational approach (Simovska and Jensen, 2003). Data was generated through document and web content analysis as well as interviews with the teachers and students. In what follows I will discuss only the findings concerning the issue of student participation. Participation in meaning The analysis of the contents students presented on the Young Minds website showed that students worked with open concepts within the area of alcohol, using a plethora of enquiry methods that they chose independently and/or in collaboration with the teachers. Table 2 summarises the variety of investigation methods that students used to explore and discuss the issue of alcohol consumption, examples of content-focus in their inquiries and the participation structures observable in the web contents. The findings of the students’ investigations as well as their conclusions and reflections were also presented on the website. The contents students presented on the website reflected the complex nature of the issues at hand as well as students’ own interests and lived experience. For example, they addressed negative, as well as positive effects of alcohol consumption; made links between the consumption of alcohol and traditions and customs in different cultures; presented national guidelines for moderate drinking issued in a number of countries in Europe; discussed social as well as individual causes for alcohol use and misuse. Evidently, in their work students considered the links between lifestyle, living conditions, culture and context. They also developed visions about solution strategies concerning alcohol-related problems, and, in some schools, took action in their schools to address some of the problems. Examples of actions documented on the website

183

184

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

include: alcohol-free party at school; a debate about alcohol and young people between parents and students organized at school; change of the school policy concerning advertisements in school (a ban of using free drinks to advertise junior parties). In addition, the students who participated in the conference in Stockholm interviewed a number of conference participants (policy makers and politicians) in an attempt to raise their awareness for the need to listen to the voices of young people and engage young people in dialogue and decision-making processes about issues that concern their lives. In the positive reactions and feedback they got from the conference participants the students could see the immediate impact they made on the conference process. This had quite an Table 2. Investigation methods, content-focus and participation structures in exploring links between youth, culture and alcohol consumption Investigation methods

Content focus

Participation structures

• cross cultural surveys, interviews with students and teachers • interviews with parents, interviews with people from the local community • photo narratives • web and literature search • essays • creative workshops involving drawing, modelling • brainstorming and class debates

• reasons to start drinking, differences and similarities across countries • cultural traditions related to drinking in a historical perspective • positive and negative effects of drinking • trust between parents and children • policies concerning alcohol and young people locally • places where young people drink • drinking and school • recommended units • parties without and with alcohol • having fun and alcohol • goods and bads about drinking

• • • • •

individual work work in pairs small groups cross-country teams whole class discussions

Participation and Learning about Health

empowering and motivating effect. Students’ accounts in the interviews are a clear signal that they felt that their participation made a difference to the conference. Examples capturing the feelings of empowerment and ownership include: They [conference participants] should tell if we made a difference, I would like to hear that. But I think we made them think that what we feel matters. (student A) …I don’t know if they made a law or something like that, but we asked a lot of questions, important questions. Sometimes, the politicians tried to slip away, to lie, but they could not. (student C) The students’ ideas presented on the website and their accounts in the interviews indicated that the aims and the outcomes of their participation were open and divergent, depending on the choices that students, together with their teachers made during the process. There were no predetermined contents in the alcohol area that the students had to learn, recall and employ. Rather, students were exploring the area in their own ways, supported by the teachers and using the broad possibilities of ICT and cross-cultural collaboration. The website reflected the fact that the focus of the participation was placed on critical reflection and negotiation of meanings related to the issue of alcohol consumption rather than on changing students’ behaviour with this regard. Furthermore, the action students took at the conference brought learning closer to ‘real life’ and so contributed to enhancement of students’ commitment, participation skills and authentic action experience. All these point to the genuine participation discourse in which student involvement aims primarily at their socialisation towards the democratic processes of making decisions together with others, acting to reach shared goals, creating meanings together and developing social, emotional and personal competences in the process. Table 3 summarises the characteristics of student participation in the project by using the participation model discussed above. The data from the case study showed that an important aspect of learning in the project was peer collaboration, both within the class and across the classes in the four countries. However, not all forms of peer cooperation were necessarily beneficial. It was only when students shared the logic of the task and when they focused on solution strategies for handling a problem that their

185

186

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

Table 3. Characteristics of student participation in Young Minds Characteristics of participation

Examples

Student participation was focused on

inquiry in the area of alcohol consumption, creation of shared frames of reference, development of common understandings and visions across classes

The expected outcomes concerned

students’ enhanced awareness in relation to alcohol-related problems, critical thinking, creative articulation of ideas and planning for action together with others

Students’ actions targeted

the everyday school life, alcohol policies and decision-making mechanisms on a whole school level, the awareness of parents and of policymakers about young people’s voices

participation in cooperative activities was mutually beneficial. Thus, consistent to the research within socio-cultural theory (Rogoff, 1995; 2001) the present case study demonstrated that intersubjectivity and collective thinking, supported by teachers’ guidance, allow for creating levels of meaning that transcend students’ individual efforts. When students are actively engaged in a creative process in which intersubjectivity is achieved, this leads to generating new insights, systems of meanings and new solutions. As Vygotsky points out (1987), intersubjectivity as a ground for communication encourages the extension of students’ understanding to new information and further activities. Students internalise, or, appropriate the social and cultural tools of knowing as they use them in joint problem solving. Genuine participation has an embedded capacity to encourage processes of collective learning, which in turn is beneficial to the individual student as the individual’s initiative, commitment and critical thinking are fostered. The Young Minds students used a number of ICT resources to present their class work and teamwork, and got feedback from students in the other classes. Through the feedback, the young people provided one another with guidance, challenge and inspiration. Furthermore, at the conference students acted in

Participation and Learning about Health

cross-cultural teams, planning and preparing their actions together. Additionally, throughout the project students used the online forum to discuss, confront and share their opinions and ideas related to the project topic with young people from different countries within the ENHPS. All these project activities contributed to creating a dynamic collective zone(s) of proximal development which was more inclusive, motivating and in advance of the developmental level of any individual student. Contrary to the traditional understanding that students need to be motivated in order to learn it seems that this project supported Vygotsky’s (1987) claim that children need to learn in meaningful ways in order to be motivated. Further, the online learning environment as created for the project, combined with the participatory and action-oriented teaching approach, demonstrated to have the potential to challenge traditional power relations in the classroom. The interplay among cross-cultural collaboration, action-taking and participation in an online learning environment contributed to students’ increased sense of self-determination and control over their activities and so their learning. ICT provided structures that encouraged the students’ freedom to learn in their own ways and pace, as well as to create and communicate meaning in more flexible, inclusive and democratic ways. The participation in the community of learners as defined in this project allowed for authentic and intentional learning where common understanding was created in a shared process of goal setting, decision-making, planning and taking action. To use the expression of Rogoff, it was a ‘minds-on’, purposeful learning through reflective participation in socially structured practices (Rogoff et al, 2001). The students’ individual choices, which they made over the course of the project, were not independent of each other; rather, they constituted each other and depended on the possibilities that existed at the level of the group or the community of learners. The community of learners was heterogeneous with regard to competence, skills and knowledge. This created a flexible, dynamic structure of learning ‘zone’ consisting of more as well as less experienced peers that helped and complemented each other’s learning. Thus, learning in the zone of proximal development as described in this project was facilitated by mutual or peer relations, as well as by the asymmetric relations with teachers as more experienced partners in the educational dialogue.

187

188

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

Concluding Reflections I will conclude by outlining a few issues and challenges for further research emerging from reflecting on the theoretical concepts and the case study presented in the paper. The health promoting schools approach should involve critical examination of the concept of student participation if it is to truly integrate the principles of democracy, ownership and empowerment. The health promoting schools approach that is informed with the concept of genuine student participation entails a different view on learning and challenges the traditional power imbalances in schools. However, there are no simple, straightforward answers to the question how to ensure genuine student participation in the school context. Health promoting schools, and also the concept of participation, should be seen more as processes of contextual interpretation and negotiation of meanings rather than as outcomes of the implementation of global principles. Therefore, researchers would do well to work in close collaboration with teachers and students, taking their perspectives on the possibilities and barriers related to participatory teaching and learning at school as a starting point for better understanding of these processes and for improving the realities of practice. The view on learning inherent to the socio-cultural perspective provides a valuable theoretical framework to reflect on the processes of student participation and the development of their action competence within the democratic health promoting schools approach. The socio-cultural perspective emphasises the social and relational nature of learning and the importance of interaction between cognition, context and practice. Intersubjectivity and participation-in-meaning are core elements of learning through participation, pointing to dialogue and social interaction as the vital constituents of learning processes in the zone of proximal development. However, given the fact that most of the research has been focused on dyadic, child-adult or child-child interactions and so on learning in the ‘individual’ zone of proximal development, more research is needed to expand the concept of the zone of proximal development to school contexts and to explore the possibilities for and barriers to creating class-wide, collective zones of proximal development. The philosophy of the health promoting schools emphasises the significance of the whole school environment, school ethos and school culture for the processes of learning about health, and thereby provides a good basis for the development and research of new ways of creating communities of learners that allow the

Participation and Learning about Health

social nature of learning to be expressed. Nevertheless, even if the processes of learning are seen within the context of the whole school setting, the sociocultural perspective suggests that it is not sufficient to focus on the ways individual students learn. The unit of analysis should be ‘person-andenvironment’. This has consequences for both research focus and research methods in the area of the health promoting schools. It is through genuine student participation that the collective zone of proximal development is created. Genuine participation implies open outcomes and involves individuals-in-context rather than isolated individuals. Genuine participation is conducive to enhancing students’ empowerment and ownership, which are necessary preconditions for the development of the ability to take action and initiate changes with regard to health. Both peers and teachers play important roles in creating a community of learners. However, the role of the teachers as more experienced partners in the educational dialogue is vital, as it is their responsibility to design learning situations and interactions that are slightly beyond the actual developmental level of students and to support students in the learning process. Support in this case means – to guide, encourage, confront and challenge students as well as to help them overcome barriers. Given the fact that students are not a homogeneous group but differ in their identities, previous experience, motivation, skills and learning styles, the complexity of the role of the teachers is evident. Further research is needed to explore new ways of professional development and teacher support to improve teachers’ competences to work with participatory strategies that encourage student ownership and relational learning and that contribute to the development of action competence.

References Arnstein, S. (1969) ‘Eight rungs on the ladder of citizen participation’ Journal of the American Institute of planners, 35, 4: 216-224. Brager, C and Sprecht, H. (1973) Community Organizing, Columbia University Press. Cornwall, A. (1996) ‘Toward participatory practice: participatory rural appraisal’ in De Koning, K. and Martin, M. (eds), Participatory Research in Health: Issues and Experiences, London: Zed Books. Cooke, B. and Kothari, U. (2001) ‘The Case for participation as Tyranny’ in Cooke, B. and Kothari, U. (eds), Participation: The New Tyranny? (1-16), London: Zed Books.

189

190

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

Denman, S., Moon, A. Parsons, C. and Stears, D. (2002) The Health Promoting School; Policy, Research and Practice, Routledge Falmer, London and New York. Hart, R. (1992) ‘Children’s’ participation: from tokenism to citizenship’ UNICEF International Child Development Centre, Florence, Italy Hart, R. (1997) Children Participation, the theory and practice of involving young citizens in community development and environmental care, Earthscan Publications, Ltd, London. Holzman, L. (1997) Schools for Growth – Radical Alternatives to Current Educational Model, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Mahawah, New Jersey, London. Jensen, B.B. (1994) ‘Action, Action Competence and Change in the Field of Environmental and Health Education’, in: Jensen, B.B. and Schnack, K. (Eds.) Action and Action Competence as Key Concepts in Critical Pedagog, Didaktiske studier, Studies in Educational Theory and Curriculum, vol.12 Royal Danish School of Educational Studies 73-87. Jensen, B.B. and Schnack, K. (Eds.) (1994) Action and Action Competence as Key Concepts in Critical Pedagogy, Didaktiske studier, Studies in Educational Theory and Curriculum, vol.12 Royal Danish School of Educational Studies Jensen, B.B. (1997) ‘A case of two paradigms within health education’ Health Education Research, Vol. 12, no. 4: 419-428. Jensen, B.B. (2000) ‘Participation, Commitment and Knowledge as Components of Pupil’s Action Competence’ In Jensen, B.B., Schnack, K. and Simovska, V. (eds), Critical Environmental and Health Education: Research Issues and Challenges, (219-239). Copenhagen: Research Centre for Environmental and Health Education, the Danish University of Education. Jensen, B.B. (2004) ‘Environmental and health education viewed from an action-oriented perspective: a case from Denmark’ Journal of Curriculum Studies, Vol. 36, no. 4: 405-425. Jensen , B. B. and Simovska, V. (Eds.) (2002) Models of Health Promoting Schools in Europe, WHO Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen. Johnson, V. Smith, I.E., Gordon, G. Pridmore, P. and Scott, P. (Eds.) (1998) Stepping Forward: Children and young people’s participation in the development process, London: Intermediate Technology Publications. Katz, J. and Peberdy, A. (1998) Promoting Health: Knowledge and Practice The Open University. Marton, F. and Booth, S. (1997) Learning and Awareness New Jersey, Mahawah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Paechter, C (2001): Schooling and the Ownership of Knowledge, in Paechter, C., Preedy, M., Scott, D and Soler, J. (Eds.) Knowledge, Power and Learning, Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.

Participation and Learning about Health

Pianta (1999) Enhancing Relationships between Children and Teachers, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC Rogoff, Barbara (1990) Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive Development in Social Context, Oxford University Press. Rogoff, B. (1993) Children’s’ Guided Participation and Participatory Appropriation in Socio-cultural Activity, in Wozniak, R. H. and Fisher, K. W. (Eds.) Development in Context: Acting and Thinking in Specific Environments, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. 121-155. Rogoff, B. (1995) Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship, in Wertsch, J., Del Rio, P. and Alvarez, A. (Eds.) (1995) Sociocultural studies of mind, Cambridge University Press, 139-165. Rogoff, B., Turkanis, C. G. and Bartlett, L. (Eds.) (2001) Learning Together: Children and Adults in a School Community, Oxford University Press. Rogoff, B. Paradise, R., Arauz, R.M. Correa-Chavez, M. and Angelillo, C. (2003) ‘Firsthand Learning Through Intent Participation’ Annual Review of Psychology. 54: 175-203. Schnack, K. (2000) Action Competence as a Curriculum Perspective in: Jensen, B.B., Schnack, K. AND Simovska, V. (Eds.) Critical Environmental and Health Education: Research Issues and Challenges, Research Centre for Environmental and Health Education, the Danish University of Education. Simovska, V. (2000) ‘Exploring Student Participation within health education and health promoting school’, in Jensen, B. B., Schnack, K. and Simovska, V. (Eds.) Critical Environmental and Health Education: Research Issues and Challenges. Research Centre for Environmental and Health Education, the Danish University of Education. Simovska, V. and Jensen, B.B (2003) young-minds.net/lessons learnt: Student participation, action and cross-cultural collaboration in a virtual classroom, Danish University of Education Press. Simovska, V. (2004) ‘Student participation: a democratic education perspective – experience from the health-promoting schools in Macedonia’, Health Education Research, Vol. 19 no. 2: 198-207. Simovska, V. (2005) Learning by InterAction: Learning about health through participation and action – the health promoting schools perspective. Doctoral Dissertation, Copenhagen: the Danish University of Education. Vigotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L.S. (1987) Thinking and Speech. In R.W. Rieber and A. S. Carton (Eds.) The Collected Works of L.S. Vygotsky (N. Minick, Trans). New York: Plenum Press. World Health Organization (1986) The Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion, Health Promotion, 1 iii-v.

191

192

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

World Health Organization (1993) The European Network of Health Promoting Schools, Resource Manual. World Health Organization, Council of Europe and Commission of the European Communities. World Health Organization (1997) Conference Resolution, 1st Conference of the European Network of Health Promoting Schools. WHO Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen. World Health Organization (1999) Health 21 – health for all in the 21st century, the health for all policy framework for the WHO European Region. WHO Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen (European Health for All Series, No. 6). World Health Organisation (2002) The Egmond Agenda. A tool to help establish and develop health promotion in schools and related sectors across Europe, Egmond aan Zee, the Netherlands, 25-27 September 2002/ENHPS Technical Secretariat. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe.

Websites Young Minds (2000-2001) http://www.young-minds.net/ym/top/index.php

See also Young Minds (2002) http://2002.young-minds.net/ Young Minds (2004) http://2000.young-minds.net/

193

10

Inequality, Health and Action For Health – Do Children and Young People have an Opinion? Bjarne Bruun Jensen and Bente Jensen

Introduction According to the declaration from the first conference for European Health Promoting Schools the overall aim of a health promoting school is to ‘… improve young people’s abilities to take action and generate change’ (WHO, 1997). Initiating such processes of transformation requires that the young people acquire ownership of the conditions and challenges involved. Exploring and identifying young people’s own concepts of health is therefore a key prerequisite for successful health education and promotion activities. Many of these health activities have only moderate success in reaching the objectives and targets established. One possible reason for this lack of success is that the initiated activities do not involve and impact the target group of children and young people. Consequently, the conference declaration from the first conference of ENHPS states (WHO, 1997): The curriculum must be relevant to the needs of young people, both now and in the future, as well as stimulating their creativity, encouraging them to learn and providing them with necessary learning skills. On the basis of these fundamental assumptions this article explores young people’s concepts of health. As a specific issue young people’s understanding of ‘Inequality in health’ is explored and discussed. An international conference ‘Reducing Social Inequalities in Health Among Children and Young People’ resulted in a number of recommendations for working with young people of which one was (Danish Ministry for Interior and Health, 2004: 93):

194

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

Social inequality in health should be included in national curricula and linked to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. As a basis for developing young people’s ideas and visions for a society with less inequality, the national curricula should provide knowledge on the structural and cultural factors in society generating inequality in health. Social inequality in health is an important theme recognized internationally, and numerous projects and interventions have been initiated that aim to reduce social inequality in health. This chapter focuses on the issue of young people’s understanding of this societal challenge by addressing the following questions: • Do young people believe that health and illness are inequitably distributed? • Do young people have an attitude towards these issues? • Which potential determinants do young people consider important? • What action and change do young people propose to enable health to be distributed more equitably and do they believe they themselves can contribute to reducing the existing inequality in health, not merely in school but in society as a whole? After a brief review of the international literature, the survey, the methods and the main findings, will be presented. The focus will be on young people’s concepts and understanding of 1) health, 2) inequality in health and 3) action for health. Furthermore, the influence of gender and social class will be briefly explored. Finally the implications and challenges for future health promotion and education will be outlined.

Review of the Literature In this section we present a very brief overview of the international research on children’s and young people’s health concepts. For each of the tendencies dealt with a few illustrative examples will be given. For a more elaborative review see Jensen and Jensen (2005). The main part of the international literature within this area has focused on children’s and young people’s concepts of illnesses within a Piagetian framework (see for example Rushforth (1999) for a critical review). In one of the

Inequality, Health and Action For Health – Do Children and Young People have an Opinion?

most influential studies (Bibace and Walsh, 1980) Piaget’s theory of cognitive development (Piaget, 1929) provided the case for a ‘six-category’ model (phenomenistic, contagion, contamination, internalisation, physiological, psycho-physiological) indicating that children’s cognitive development related to illness progresses from global undifferentiated ideas to more abstract and complex ones. Many researchers have tried to confirm, sophisticate and further develop these stage-models (e.g. Eiser et al., 1984; Hansdottir and Malcarne, 1998; Kister and Patterson, 1980). Recently, a growing number of researchers have criticised and challenged the idea that children’s cognitive development goes through a set number of pre-defined stages (see for instance Jensen, 1989, 1991; Kalnins and Love, 1982; Normandeau et al., 1998; Rushforth, 1999). The main criticism stresses the importance of viewing children’s cognitive development as influenced by their socialization and not as an automatic development through fixed stages. Another type of criticism challenges the dominant focus on children’s misconceptions in relation to specific illnesses. Consequently, a number of surveys have been carried out to explore how children and young people view and understand more open concepts related to the WHO definition of health. The conclusions from these are presented below. With few exceptions the literature concludes that children and young people understand health as more than the absence of disease, emphasising feelings, emotions, life quality and social relations. As an example Altman and Revenson (1985) asked children (between 8 and 14 years old) the question “What does it mean to be healthy?” 51% of the answers were categorized under ‘feeling/being in good physical and mental health’ while only 25% of the answers were categorized within ‘absence of illness’. In a questionnaire involving 1,629 students from grade 7 (13 years old) they where among other things asked the question “What does the word health mean to you?” Twice as many expressed positive dimensions of health compared to more diseaseoriented aspects (Jensen 1989, 1991). In a survey from Brazil 96 students between 6 and 14 years responded to the question “What is health?” and the most frequent category was ‘positive feelings’ while ‘preventive practices’ was the second category mentioned by half as many (Boruchovitsch and Mednick, 1997). With respect to important factors influencing our health the main body of literature suggests that young people primarily think of nutrition and exercise. For example, Bird and Podmore (1990) asked children at 5 and 9 years old about

195

196

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

things to do to be healthy and ‘eating/food’ was the most frequent category mentioned at both age groups. Natapoff (1978) interviewed 264 children between 1st and 7th grade and asked the question “what does the word ‘health’ mean?” and ‘nutrition’ was mentioned by 42% while ‘exercise’ came up as the second priority mentioned by 29%. Williams et al. (1987) used the so-called ‘draw-and-write’ technique to explore health concepts among 9,584 children between 4 and 8 years in England and nutrition and exercise was mentioned as the most frequent factors by 50% of the children. Other surveys, where questions have been more explicitly related to concrete situations and problems, suggest that children and young people are more concerned about living conditions, e.g. the environment, traffic etc. Examples of these are Brumby et al. (1985) where children were asked about factors that influence our life span and Jensen (1989, 1991) who asked the question “what factors do influence our health?” Also Kalnins et al. (1994) found that 9-10-year old children were able to identify many problems in their surroundings and specifically label them as healthy or unhealthy. The review of the international literature therefore suggests that the context in which the survey is carried out and the design of the interview or questionnaire to a high degree shape the responses and answers given from the children. Furthermore, a number of recent surveys indicate that children go beyond a behaviouroriented health concept and include living conditions if the context and design of the study ‘allow them’ to do so. A few surveys, which focus on concepts and understandings of inequality in health, have been carried out with adults (Blaxter, 1997; Calnan, 1987; Popay et al., 2003). They indicate that lay people possess a multi-factorial concept, which explains inequality in health as a combination of individual factors and factors at the structural and societal level. Furthermore they also show that people living in disadvantaged areas hesitate to view themselves as ‘passive victims’. There is a lack of surveys addressing children’s concepts of inequality in health. In relation to ‘actions for health’ a number of surveys suggest that children emphasize ‘healthy behaviour’ as the most important action. Nevertheless, many surveys are designed on the basis of an individualistic and behaviourdominated health concept. When Altman and Revenson (1985) for instance ask the question “What can you do to stay healthy?” or when Williams et al. (1987) ask children to imagine what they do when they try to stay healthy, then the framework is already narrowed down to a behaviour-oriented health definition. Also when Normandeau et al. (1998) ask the questions ”Is it necessary to do

Inequality, Health and Action For Health – Do Children and Young People have an Opinion?

particular things to be healthy? If yes, which things are necessary?” the focus is on the individual’s behaviour. Other surveys have explicitly emphasized broader potentials for health promoting actions and for instance Jensen (1989, 1991) asked the question “What can we do to promote health for ourselves and for others?” and concluded that the most frequent suggestions were: pollution (mentioned by 45%) and nutrition (mentioned 27%). Kalnins et al. (2002) found that 9-10-year olds are interested in changing community conditions that affect their health, but that their perception that adults don’t take them serious may be significant barriers to their action-taking. Some research findings in the literature have documented a few tendencies with respect to gender differences in children’s conception of health. Firstly, girls seem to be more concerned with health in general (Jensen, 1989, 1991; Sobal, 1987). Furthermore, girls more often report food and nutrition than is the case for boys while it is the opposite with respect to physical exercise (Cohen et al., 1990; Jutras et al., 1997; Jutras and Bison, 1994). With respect to differences in children’s health concepts by socioeconomic background studies are extremely rare and there is no clear evidence of variations.

Methods The findings presented in this article are based on a survey with several different components. The main survey targeted the seventh-graders (average age 13 years) and ninth-graders (average age 15 years) at 100 randomly chosen, representative schools throughout Denmark of which 83 schools responded positively. The data were collected in 2001 and the total number of valid responses was 3,500. Inequality in health is a complex societal problem, and obtaining valid responses on young people’s concepts and attitudes towards key factors related to this may be difficult. Issues relating to health, inequality in health, action and other topics were therefore discussed with the young people in a series of focus group interviews to improve the quality of the data. The insight gained into the young people’s own concepts in relation to the overall challenge formed the basis for designing the questionnaire. In addition, the questionnaire had several open-ended questions that provided the opportunity for expressing opinions about health and inequality.

197

198

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

The questionnaire was tested in a pilot survey of 120 students in grades 7 and 9, and the responses were discussed with selected respondents immediately afterwards. The final version of the questionnaire was simplified so that the respondents could understand it and could complete it within one school lesson of 45 minutes. The results and the conclusions of the questionnaire were finally introduced to four ‘panels’ of young people at the age of 15 years with the aim of getting their reflections and further explorations of the conclusions from the questionnaire survey. In the following selected quantitative and qualitative findings from the various methods are presented to explore the issue of young people’s concepts of inequality, health and action for health.

Findings The concept of health This section focuses on young people’s attitudes towards health based on two perspectives. The first is based on the definition of health. One question here is whether adolescents think that health and life quality are related, overlap or are distinct concepts. The second is the factors adolescents consider important for people’s health. The survey documents that young people possess a health concept that goes beyond a traditional medical-oriented concept of health as 56% consider health and the good life to be overlapping while 34% indicate that they are identical. Only 10% said that health and the good life are not identical at all. Most of the respondents consider health and a good life to be closely intertwined, as many responses to the open questions clearly indicate: Health mostly means that you aren’t sick. Good, juicy apples, all kinds of fruit, not too much fast food, not too much candy. For me health also means feeling good, which means being healthy deep inside. Bullying and that type of thing is bad for your health. Health means that you have a good life. This means good relations with family, friends. But also that you eat healthy food. Having a good place to live, not being unhappy. Hygiene and cleanliness must be okay and you have to have a good education.

Inequality, Health and Action For Health – Do Children and Young People have an Opinion?

Health is something that is very important in everyone’s lives. It is actually important for the whole world and the universe – and this means ENJOYING LIFE! The respondents considered the mental and social aspects of people’s lives to be similarly important to the physical aspects. Thus, the physical, mental and social aspects of health and their mutual relationships are deeply rooted concepts for most young people: When many people hear the word health, they think of good food and being in good physical shape. But that is not everything. You can easily eat really healthy food and exercise for 5 hours each day. But what about inside you? Inner well-being may require that you be well externally, but it requires, for example, having a good workplace with good co-workers; that is, good relations with the people around you. You should not be apathetic about yourself. Health has many aspects, but the most important are and will remain the environment, exercise, food and friends and family. And that you can get health care that cures you if you are ill. Good that you ask for our opinions. But does health mean eating apples and running in school? I don’t think so. Healthy means that I live in a functioning family. Unhealthy is a classroom with more than 20 children in only about 18 square metres. This is sweltering. And then: peace on Earth. These remarks illustrate very precisely that young people consider health to be more than the absence of disease and that they define health as a multidimensional concept that includes behaviour, living conditions and illness on equal terms with the perceived quality of life. These results confirm the findings from the international literature. The survey also explored whether children and young people consider health to be exclusively related to behaviour or whether they believe that living conditions should be considered determinants. The questionnaire asked about 24 potential determinants of health. These 24 items were selected based on the terms young people used in the focus group interviews. In addition, a key aim

199

200

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

was to mix the determinants of health related to living conditions and individual behaviour. The respondents were asked to decide whether each of these 24 factors is ‘very important’, ‘important’, ‘slightly important’ or ‘not important’ as a determinant of health. The questionnaire stated explicitly that each factor could positively or negatively influence health. In addition, health was not limited to health among children and was defined as ‘people’s health’. Table 1 lists, in rank order, the factors rated as being very important. The respondents considered almost all 24 factors as being important in determining people’s health. This was the first significant finding in this part of the survey: adolescents consider many different factors to be important in determining health. The respondents considered factors related to behaviour and factors related to living conditions to be equally important in determining health. Food and physical exercise as well as the environment and pollution were among the most highly rated factors. Many of these adolescents included social aspects such as family and friends to be important determinants of health. Global perspectives such as war also rated highly. In relation to the discussion of health versus the quality of life, 72% of the respondents said that happiness is an important determinant of health. Thus, being happy is not isolated from or independent of being healthy. Food received the highest score with 78% rating this as being very important for health. This is not surprising, given the intensity of many recent initiatives on food, especially from the public sector. Further, the responses to the open questions indicate comprehensive attitudes towards health, in which lifestyles (in this case dietary habits) are associated with the prevailing living conditions. For example: Do you have the opportunity to get enough to eat when you, for example, are poor? Does everyone have the opportunity to get healthy food? Is the food safe to eat in an erea with widespread pollution? Based on the interviews, these adolescents considered the issues raised here to be just as important to discuss as the nutritional content and function of food. The respondents further linked food to ideas related to the quality of life: Health means eating healthy food with good friends Healthy food and good social interaction combine to comprise health...!

Inequality, Health and Action For Health – Do Children and Young People have an Opinion?

Table 1. Percentage of 13–15 year olds in Denmark rating various factors as being ‘very important’ for people’s health (rank ordered) N = 3,500 Percentage rating a factor ‘very important’ Food

78

Hygiene and cleanliness

74

Family

72

Friends

72

Happiness

72

Physical exercise

71

The environment and pollution

70

Tobacco smoking

64

Work environment

58

War

56

Education

53

Bullying

53

Loneliness

49

Alcohol consumption

48

Housing

43

School life

42

Leisure activities

42

Transport and traffic

37

Stress

37

Being poor

37

Racism

35

Unemployment

31

Health campaigns

28

Being rich

10

A strikingly low 10% of the respondents rated being rich as being very important for health. However, 37%, rated being poor as being a very important factor for health. We can only speculate about the thoughts behind these responses, but they could indicate that adolescents think that, on the one hand, health cannot be simply purchased but that, on the other hand, a certain standard of living is needed to maintain health. In addition, it is striking that unemployment is ranked so low. The low rating for this factor probably comprises the greatest discrepancy compared with the scientific documentation, which clearly indicates that unemployment is one of the greatest determinants of negative health effects.

201

202

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

Finally, only 28% of the respondents rated health campaigns as being very important for health. The focus group interviews already indicated that these adolescents had opinions on campaigns. The interviews also showed that the adolescents are often sceptical about health campaigns and their design: When I see advertisements on health, such as anti-smoking campaigns, I think for just a moment that what can happen is terrible, but then I do not think any more about it, because 5 seconds later the next commercial is on. Campaigns give me sort of such a neighbourly feeling.... they always apply to the person next to me. Several questions were therefore formulated to obtain more knowledge about adolescents’ attitudes towards campaigns as a form of dissemination of health messages. In the interview, the adolescents were asked to characterize campaigns, and based on these responses several characteristics were formulated to evoke responses in the questionnaire. The respondents indicated whether they thought each characteristic would be ‘very important’, ‘important’, ‘slightly important’ or ‘not important’ in influencing them. Table 2 shows the percentage of the respondents who rated each characteristic of a health campaign as being very important. Table 2. Percentage of 13–15 year olds in Denmark rating ‘various characteristics of health campaigns as being very important’ if they are to influence the respondent (rank order) N = 3,500

Percentage rating the characteristic ‘very important’

Being genuine and credible

60

Providing information and knowledge

55

Being funny

32

Scaring me

23

Giving rewards or prizes

19

Making me feel guilty

18

Inequality, Health and Action For Health – Do Children and Young People have an Opinion?

These responses can be compared with those to another question assessing the extent to which adolescents believe that health campaigns influence them. Six per cent responded that health campaigns influence them considerably, 30% somewhat, 34% slightly and 20% not at all. Thus, many adolescents who do not otherwise think that health campaigns influence them still have ideas as to how a campaign should be optimally designed to influence them. The respondents expressed the opinion that campaigns based on gimmicks (such as humour or scare tactics) are not needed; disseminating genuine and credible information is most likely to be effective. One can question the validity of these adolescents’ assessment of whether and how health campaigns influence them, but it is still striking that they have attitudes as to how an effective campaign would be designed. The following statements illustrate these attitudes: I think it is ridiculous that campaigns or ads appeal to our conscience instead of appealing to our intelligence. They have to try somehow to figure out what makes us change the most. I think it is so irritating that they target our guilty conscience; it seems stupid if I am, like, chewing on a cookie and then an ad comes on saying how unhealthy this is ... Health is important to have a good life. Health is definitely having a good education and lots of friends that can give you support. But campaigns are not very effective means of combating, for example, obesity. They try to frighten us – but instead let us see how fat people are doing. With respect to the international literature the findings confirm the experience that young people acknowledge livings conditions as well as lifestyle issues as important determinants for health. Furthermore, they express a multidimensional and complex health concept indicating that lifestyle, living conditions, disease and life quality are closely linked. Finally they show a sceptical attitude to health campaigns and their design. Inequality in health – extent and causes This section describes the adolescents’ understanding of and attitudes about the challenge of social inequality in health. The focus group interviews sparked discussion of inequality in health in several ways. For example, the interviewed adolescents were asked to describe conditions that comprise inequality in

203

204

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

health. The discussions illustrated that adolescents are genuinely interested in the challenges of inequality. The discussion often focused on such words as ‘variation’, ‘differences’ or ‘having the same or different opportunities’. Further, people using the word inequality may already be signalling that they have taken a position that inequality is unacceptable. Since one purpose of the survey is to determine whether adolescents in Denmark believe that inequality is acceptable or not, it was decided to use the words ‘differences’ and ‘differs’, which sounded more neutral. The first item on inequality in the questionnaire attempted to determine whether young people have a viewpoint on whether inequality in health exists in Denmark. The question emphasises a broad societal perspective. The respondents were asked whether they ‘agree strongly’ ‘agree somewhat’, ‘disagree somewhat’ or ‘disagree strongly’ that, ‘In our society there are differences between people’s risk of becoming ill’. The statement was agreed with (‘strongly’ or ‘somewhat’) by 96% of the respondents. A subsequent open question ‘Which types of difference are you thinking of?’ allows detailed responses. 72% of the young people responded, and the answers are categorised in Table 3. Social and structural causes, which was the category mentioned by most of the young people, covers global as well as national issues: homeless/rich Worksite environment and social class It has something to do with rich or poor, popular or unpopular! Food poisoning, pollution If you live in a big city the risks of getting ill are greater Poor = public hospital. Rich = Private hospital The category on behaviour and lifestyle includes smoking as the main component and nutrition as the second but it is not clear if the respondents conceptualize these phenomena as influenced by the conditions under which people live. Biological and physical causes include immune defence and people’s resources (‘strength’, ‘some people can cope and others cannot’ and ‘how sensible you are’). Being lucky – or destiny – was mentioned by less than one per cent of the adolescents.

Inequality, Health and Action For Health – Do Children and Young People have an Opinion?

Table 3. Causes behind inequality (rank order) 1.

2.

3.

4.

Social and structural causes (40%) 1.1.

Poverty and economic capacity

1.2.

Occupation and worksite environment

1.3.

Environment and pollution

1.4.

Housing

1.5.

Global perspectives

1.6.

Health systems

1.7.

Family and social relations

Behaviour and lifestyle causes (30%) 2.1.

Smoking

2.2.

Food and nutrition

2.3.

Physical exercise

2.4.

Sexual behaviour

Individual biological and physical differences (20%) 3.1.

Immune defence

3.2.

Inherited characters

3.3.

Age

Destiny – luck (1%)

The conclusion is that young people in Denmark have a concept of health that includes inequality as a dimension and that they use numerous factors to explain this. Most of the respondents presented factors related to living conditions when they explained their attitudes. Young people were also asked the question ‘Do you think it is important for everyone to have the same opportunities to live a healthy life and to avoid illness?’ Nearly all respondents (97%) rated this as being very important (80%) or somewhat important (17%). A subsequent open question (to which 76% responded) showed clearly that the adolescents desire equity: It should be equitable for everyone – we should have equal opportunities.

205

206

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

We should live in a society in which no one is excluded. Because it is not fair that some people live in squalor and others live in luxury. Because we are all people and are equal in value. The young people’s responses pose a thought-provoking dilemma. A large majority of this representative sample of young people is aware that health is not equitably distributed, and at the same time nearly all the respondents believe that everyone should have the same opportunities for a healthy life. The challenge to the educational process in dealing with these topics in schools cannot be posed more clearly. Education in school must aim at starting with the knowledge and attitudes of adolescents and must support them in developing their visions and alternatives related to equity in health. Opportunities for action and change The previous sections found that young people in Denmark have a concept of health that relates health to many diverse determinants: lifestyles, living conditions, the perceived quality of life, societal factors, inequality, global conditions and others. The key question therefore is whether these adolescents have the ideas and energy to attempt to change some of the health problems they mention or whether they feel powerless and paralysed. In the focus group interviews, the adolescents expressed comprehensive concepts of health and similar complexity concerning the difficulty of intervening as individuals to change and promote health. For example, when adolescents comprehend health as being closely linked to lifestyles and living conditions, an adequate concept of action must tackle both these types of determinants. Since schools have a potentially active or facilitating role in promoting health and in reducing social inequality in health, developing adolescents’ own competence to take action in health is a key starting-point for the work of schools and other agents in reducing social inequality in health. Young people’s ability and motivation to promote change and action on health is called ‘action competence’ (see the chapter by Jensen and Simovska in this book for a presentation of the concept). This competence includes adolescents’ action to change their own behaviour and lifestyles and to change

Inequality, Health and Action For Health – Do Children and Young People have an Opinion?

the prevailing living conditions. Young people’s visions are an important prerequisite to and component of this competence. This component expresses whether they actually have ideas or proposals on how health can be promoted. Another component is commitment: whether they desire to struggle to implement their ideas and visions. A third component expresses their attitudes towards the ease of achieving the influence to which any visions and commitment could lead. On the ‘vision-component’, adolescents were asked whether they had good ideas on how to improve health (‘yes’ or ‘no’): their own, their family’s, their school’s and the world’s. The percentage responding yes to these four settings were 73% for making the world healthier, 68% for improving their own health, 56% to improve the health in the family and 55% for making their school healthier. Consequently, this survey does not provide evidence that young people lack visions and ideas on promoting health. Furthermore, they obviously do not exclusively focus on their own lives but are also interested in global challenges, confirming the previous findings on global responsibility and concern. In other words, this survey does not confirm the portrayal of adolescents as being individualistic and self-centred. With respect to young people’s commitment to act in order to reach their visions they were asked if they are willing to ‘struggle to improve health’ in the four settings. Eighty-one per cent said yes in relation to improving their own health, 68% to their family’s health, 63% would struggle to make the world healthier while 46% would struggle for improving the health at school. These results indicate that most young people strongly desire to carry out ideas to promote health. In addition, the adolescents seemed to consider improving their own health to be more feasible than taking action to influence more complex health problems that are created by society and are more political. In relation to the previous question on ideas, the global perspective and schools especially lost ground. Within these two settings, many adolescents said that they have ideas on how to improve health but not as many were willing to struggle for them. Nevertheless, nearly half the pupils in grades 7 and 9 in Denmark want to struggle to carry out their ideas on promoting health. Many people could claim that this commitment is not very prominent in everyday school activities. Table 4 may help to explain this. The respondents were asked how easy they find achieving influence (‘very easy’, ‘easy’, ‘difficult’ or ‘very difficult’) in their daily settings: leisure activities, family, school and society. This question intended to

207

208

The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice

associate the self-rated potential for influence with the self-rated visions and willingness to struggle. Table 4. Percentage of 13–15 year olds in Denmark rating various factors as being ‘very important’ for people’s health (rank ordered) N = 3,500 Percentage responding ‘very easy’ Leisure activities

36

Family

44

School

14

Society

6

Not surprisingly, adolescents rated society as being the most difficult setting to influence. In contrast, it is striking that only 14% of the respondents believed that achieving influence in school is very easy. This could indicate that pupils have substantial action competence but are given relatively few opportunities to apply it. To explore this tension between individuals and society, the respondents were asked their opinions on the extent to which six potential categories of actors can contribute to improving health (‘considerably’, ‘somewhat’, ‘very little’ or ‘not at all’). These six categories emerged from the focus group interviews (table 5). Table 5. Percentage of 13–15 year olds in Denmark responding that they think that specific categories of actors can contribute to improving health ‘considerably’ or ‘somewhat’. N = 3,500 Percentage responding ‘considerably’ or ‘somewhat’ Health care personnel, physicians, nurses

87

You – together with others

84

The family

82

The school

72

Politicians

68

You alone

61

Inequality, Health and Action For Health – Do Children and Young People have an Opinion?

These adolescents rated health care personnel highly here. Many adolescents express great confidence in health care personnel despite considerable current criticism in the mass media of selected parts of the health care system in Denmark. Strikingly, these adolescents consider themselves to be important actors in health despite the recognition that led to the previous citations, and this competence is especially expressed in relation to cooperation with other people. The perspectives of these adolescents thus focus on cooperation. This should be viewed in relation to the fact that their concept of health includes determinants related to lifestyles, living conditions and global forces. Thus, the challenge for schools is not merely to develop pupils’ action competence but also to find opportunities to allow pupils scope for action in collaboration with others. About half the pupils in grades 7 and 9 had good ideas on how their school could become healthier and expressed commitment to struggle to carry them out. This comprises a great potential for health promotion. Thus, the schools can and should take responsibility for developing strategies for how to realize this action potential to improve health. Based on this survey, the main barrier to promoting health is not pupils but probably the social and educational practices of schools. Differences between subgroups? This section explores differences according to gender and social class. The space available does not allow for a deeper exploration and only brief results will therefore be presented. The differences that are statistically significant (p300) Small (n5000) Rural (n